Posted on 07/08/2006 11:06:17 AM PDT by EBH
On June 26, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a federal appeals court case involving the federal regulation of greenhouse gas pollutants, which cause global warming. In March, a coalition of 12 states, led by Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, asked the court to review a decision issued last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA. That ruling let stand the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The Supreme Court agreed to grant a hearing in the case.
"For too long, EPA has used its own research and data to support its actions -- doing nothing to regulate our greenhouse gas emissions," Reilly said. "Global warming is not a myth, and the Supreme Court has seen the importance of this case and will now have an opportunity to address the most significant environmental issue of our generation." The parties involved with this case, including Reilly, will file briefs this summer and the case will be argued before the court some time next fall.
The plaintiffs argue in the petition that "this case goes to the heart of EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time." The petition goes on to argue that the D.C. Circuit's ruling is at odds with Supreme Court precedent on statutory interpretation because it allowed EPA to refuse to regulate greenhouse gases based on policy considerations outside the scope of the Clean Air Act.
"Delay has serious potential consequences," the petition states. "Given that air pollutants associated with climate change are accumulating in the atmosphere at an alarming rate, the window of opportunity in which we can mitigate the dangers of climate change is rapidly closing."
Government studies and reports confirm that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that accumulate in the atmosphere are causing global warming and other significant climatic changes. In 2005, the National Academies of Science from 11 countries, including the United States, issued a joint statement confirming that "the threat of climate change is real and increasing."
For many years, the states and environmental groups have fought hard for regulation of greenhouse gases. In 1999, various environmental groups filed an administrative petition requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for greenhouse gases. The EPA denied that petition in August 2003, saying that it had no statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. At that time, EPA also said it would not regulate greenhouse gas emissions even if it had the authority to do so under the Clean Air Act.
In October 2003, Massachusetts, represented by Attorney General Reilly, and 29 other parties challenged that ruling in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In July 2005, the D.C. Circuit by a 2-1 vote let EPA's ruling stand. Massachusetts and several other parties requested the full D.C. Circuit rehear the case, which the Court denied in December 2005.
This March, Massachusetts and 28 other parties filed a petition requesting Supreme Court review. On June 26, the Supreme Court agreed to review the federal appeals court case. Among the parties that filed the petition are 11 other states, three cities and 13 environmental groups.
ping
And the rest of the world (except Europe) laugh at America's Naivety.
This is one that 'SandraDay' Kennedy will no doubt decide on his/her own.
Well, here's a chance for Roberts to equal and surpass the purposefully meaningless legalese gibberish produced by Rabelais' Pantagruel about 460 years ago. That's how to inscribe one's name in the annals of jurisprudence.
Ever notice they never publish the methodologies of "government studies and reports"? Once, just once I'd love to see evidence that, if global temps are actually increasing, it is caused by "greenhouse gases" and not, oh....for example.... increased solar activity or that the earth is closer to the sun than in the past? Gawd, I hate libs.....
Absolute eonomic disaster looming if SC finds that CO2 should be regulated.
Please, one more liberal vacancy!!!
Actually this is not so much about CO2 and global warming as it is about the FACT the EPA has no statutory authority to regulate CO2. If the court rules in favor of regulating CO2, it will be an activist situation.
The matter should be in front of CONGRESS, not the court.
The first sentence of the article already pushes the lie. The entire "causes global warming" issue is parroted as fact by the MSM while hard evidence is scarce to nonexistent.
This matter ought to pass the scrutiny of hard science before it even recieves mention in congress, let alone the courts.
Very much agreed!
Politics is trying to conquer science and put it under its control.
Does the word "grant" ring a bell?
Yeah it is! Unfortuniaty the SCOTUS will rule to regulate CO2 emissions, thus outlawing exhailing!
"Global warming is not a myth, neither are two Midwestern hard riding homosexual cowboys on Brokeback Mountain. Government studies authorized during the Clinton Administration by then Vice President Al Gore confirm that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that accumulate in the atmosphere are causing global warming.
The National Academies of Science from 11 countries, including the United States, issued a joint statement confirming, "the threat of climate change is real and increasing." China, Japan, France, and Russia are not contributing to the problem which seems only to be caused by American gas autos, and Democrat conventions.
For many years, the states and environmental groups have fought hard for regulation of greenhouse gases. The groups are complaining that their efforts have not affected the US economy, which is still strong and still being governed by Republicans.
Lemmeee...what does the constitution say about "Global Warming"??
I am sure the founders anticipated this and put something in to provide for it...I doubt they would have left it to the legislature.
Maybe the Court will alert us to a "felony in progress". Which the entire Globe B.S is.
Your correct. And a ruling in favor of the states would be, again legislating from the bench.
5.56mm
This opening sentence seems to be written with certainty. Isn't the cause of all of this still open to debate?
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.