Supreme Court Climate Case Looks at EPA's Power (global warming)

Industry groups and Republican-led states are heading an attack at the Supreme Court against the Obama administration's sole means of trying to limit power-plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.

As President Barack Obama pledges to act on environmental and other matters when Congress doesn't, or won't, opponents of regulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases cast the rule as a power grab of historic proportions.

The court is hearing arguments Monday about a small but important piece of the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to cut the emissions — a requirement that companies expanding industrial facilities or building new ones that would increase overall pollution must also evaluate ways to reduce the carbon they release.

What are the implications for us having to reduce our carbon footprint as individuals? We’re all CO2 factories.

That's where our real solution is. If we can just cut our population in half, like rid ourselves of those stupid Democrats, we can cut our generation of the CO2 in half and solve a lot of other problems at the same time.

The Supreme Court considered nine petitions seeking review of the appeals court’s decision on many grounds, and it accepted six of them. But it limited the issue it would consider to whether the agency “permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouses gases.” Among the cases accepted for review was Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 12-1146.

The question was narrow, and it appeared spurred by Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent. Environmental groups said they were pleased that the court had not questioned the agency’s finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger, or that it can regulate tailpipe emissions. They added that the agency has other tools to regulate stationary sources should it lose in the pending case.

From this article:
As Obama Vows to Act on Climate Change, Justices Weigh His Approach

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/us/politics/in-emissions-case-supreme-court-to-consider-the-limits-of-obamas-authority.html

Earlier in the article:
When the full appeals court declined to rehear the case, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented, and he identified the ground that would turn out to interest the Supreme Court. He said the agency had gone astray in revising the text of the statute.

“The task of dealing with global warming is urgent and important,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote, but it is primarily one for Congress to address. “The framers of the Constitution,” he added, “did not grant the executive branch the authority to set economic and social policy as it sees fit.”

Judge Kavanaugh says it is "urgent and important" and "primarily one for Congress to address"

Being that it is urgent and important, Congress not addressing the task is not an option. That was the basis of the original lawsuit.

And EPA certainly deferred to Congress when they said that they would "stay out of the way of Congress". EPA would set their regulatory thresholds at a higher level than the regulatory thresholds that Congress was considering.

In 2009 EPA set their regulatory thresholds at 25,000 tons per year because that was less stringent than the House Cap and Trade Bill.

The House bill fell through and in 2010 an attempt was made in the Senate to pass a narrower an less stringent bill and EPA revised their regulatory threshold up to the 75,000-100,000 tons to "stay out of the way of the Senate"

People need to understsnd that if and when Congress were to pass carbon legislation, it would be more stringent than what EPA is proposing.

thanks for the input.
It will be interesting to see the ruling - perhaps in June.

I may have put too much emphasis in the following statement by Kavanaugh:
The framers of the Constitution,” he added, “did not grant the executive branch the authority to set economic and social policy as it sees fit.”

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.