Skip to comments.
SCOTUS Revisits EPA Regulation of CO2
American Thinker ^
| November 5, 2013
| S. Fred Singer
Posted on 11/05/2013 8:06:40 AM PST by neverdem
On October 15, 2013, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) granted 'Certiorari' to Petitioners who have been suing the EPA over regulations to control CO2. In 2007, SCOTUS had ruled that CO2 may be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA), provided EPA could demonstrate that continued emission of CO2 would harm 'human health and welfare.' In 2009, EPA published the required Endangerment Finding, which was subsequently attacked on scientific grounds by a collection of plaintiffs. [Full disclosure: SEPP is one of the many plaintiffs involved in this lawsuit.]
However, in June 2012, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled against plaintiffs, giving deference on the science to EPA. EPA had proceeded to institute emission limits for motor vehicles, essentially by setting mileage standards. EPA is now arguing that, having successfully set CO2 limits for motor vehicles in May 2010, the CAA requires that emission limits be set on all other emitters of CO2. Using their statutory authority to set New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), EPA has proposed stringent limits on new power plants that will make new coal plants virtually impossible to construct. The EPA also wants to limit emissions from existing coal plants, arguing that EPA can set guidelines which the states would have to follow in regulating emissions...
--snip--
Congress, in its wisdom, could decide to do away with the PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) requirement for CO2 and thus not permit EPA to extend emission controls to power stations. Or, going even further, Congress may decide that CO2 is not to be considered as a criteria pollutant and cannot be regulated at all under the Clean Air Act. In other words, Congress may decide that CO2 is not a 'pollutant' -- and thus overturn and make irrelevant the Supreme Court decision of 2007...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: carbondioxide; climatechange; co2; co2regulation; epa; epaoutofcontrol; globalwarming; scotus
1
posted on
11/05/2013 8:06:40 AM PST
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
Be prepared for the government climate scientists to prove that conservatives actually emit 50% more CO2 than any other citizen (the science is PROVEN, don't deny it).
What with the euthanasia programs afoot, this duality predicts trouble.
To: neverdem
With O’s most recent EO about global warming the stage is set to complete his dictatorship. He will ignore all other checks and do whatever he wants
3
posted on
11/05/2013 8:20:26 AM PST
by
Nifster
To: Zuben Elgenubi
*Be prepared for the government climate scientists to prove that conservatives actually emit 50% more CO2 than any other citizen (the science is PROVEN, don’t deny it).*
Actually they are more likely to claim 500%.
While they’re lying, they may as well make it a BIG lie.
“80 foot rise in sea level by 2008 in NY”
“No more winter in England by 2002”
“Millions of degrees beneath the surface of the Earth”
“We have a consensus!”
To: PATRIOT1876
*With O’s most recent EO about global warming the stage is set to complete his dictatorship. *
The global warming hoax is all about setting up a totalitarian state. Everything that you do causes carbon, therefore tyrants can regulate EVERYTHING.
The $700 TRILLION in taxes and penalties connected with the Cap N’ Trade taxes and laws are enough to destroy the economy many times over...if they are allowed to become law.
To: neverdem
Prediction:
Court moves neo-marxist left, again. Rules CO2 an imminent threat to humanity or some of other drivel.
6
posted on
11/05/2013 8:44:13 AM PST
by
Para-Ord.45
( Americans, happy in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own dictators.)
To: PATRIOT1876; Zuben Elgenubi
"Everything that you do causes carbon, therefore tyrants can regulate EVERYTHING"
It doesn't apply to everything. The author, Fred Singer, accurately points out there in section B, Tailoring, that the regulatory threshold is 75,000 or 100,000 tons per year, depending if it is a new or existing permit.
Singer mentions power plants, refineries, others such as steel mills and cement kilns.
To: neverdem
Ruling CO2 as a pollutant, is proof positive that the US is being run by idiots. Perhaps some of the dumbest leaders to have ever walked on this planet.
8
posted on
11/05/2013 9:54:11 AM PST
by
justa-hairyape
(The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
To: neverdem; All
In 2007, SCOTUS had ruled that CO2 may be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA), provided EPA could demonstrate that continued emission of CO2 would harm 'human health and welfare.' Pollutant or not, activist justices are wrongly ignoring that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate environmental issues.
To: justa-hairyape; Para-Ord.45
I know we know this, but its worth stating as a reminder....
CO2 is either a bi-product of or is dependent on life on this planet. Almost all that is organtic and/or “living” can, in some way, be associated with CO2 in a cycle on earth.
For anyone with ANY knowledge, and an IQ that can withstand the simple biological understanding of CO2 origins, calling CO2 a pollutant should be cause for an insanity diagnosis. That our government recognizes CO2 as a pollutant speaks volumes.
To: neverdem
“So there is a strong possibility that the Congress will consider CO2 to be a non-pollutant.”
We used to be a federal republic. It will take a congressional law to overturn a bunch of radical leftists who infest and run the EPA.
There is little time to restore republican freedom.
11
posted on
11/05/2013 12:23:10 PM PST
by
Jacquerie
(Article V is our only hope to restore republican freedom.)
To: neverdem; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; alrea; ...
12
posted on
11/05/2013 8:26:32 PM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Major brain damage at UMES, but no property damage!)
To: Amendment10
the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate environmental issues. Oh, hadn't you heard? The Commerce Clause covers everything. :)
13
posted on
11/07/2013 6:06:20 PM PST
by
Ole Okie
To: neverdem; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
14
posted on
11/18/2013 12:13:46 PM PST
by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
