A Land Far Away

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/scotu ... index.html

Only in the US is the belief or denial of Global warming cut so deeply along political lines.

Kate

Oh jesus christ not another political circlejerk

Not really, Kate. I'm very much for the environment and am ashamed of the republican party and this administration in what they have done and not done with regards to the environment. Bush is sticking up for big business and its bullshit. We should be following all the accords and treaties and trying harder to make things better instead of lining the pockets of the big coorporations.

While the underlying principles are political on the issue of global warming - in this case the EPA's administrative decision, the court case really wasn't. The court case itself is more representative of old constitutional law lines.

This happened to be the subject of our school's journal write-on competition this winter, and though 1Ls were looking at a "limited universe" (because we can't be trusted to research on our own) I read enough to get a feel for things. Honestly, I thought Tatel (the dissent) had the better argument at the Appellate level (415 F.3d 50 for anyone who cares).

I wasn't surprised that the dissent focused on standing - though I thought in this case the argument against it was fairly novel. To get into court, you have to demonstrate a particularized injury, and I thought Massachusetts claiming global warming = erosion = loss of land was a pretty good unique injury - particularly given the British tradition of uniqueness of land. The "political process" retort is a little odd, seeing as you could make it essentially any place the challenge is to an administrative decision and not a constitutional challenge. But if the question is whether an agency is acting within the bounds of its legislatively prescribed authority seems to counter it - the states have already written the law, enforce it for Pete's sake.

As to the case merits, again I think Tatel had it better. The relevant code section is pretty plain language and the EPA Administrator's justifications didn't relate to his statutory authority - but included reference to ideas external to the "endangerment finding." National Resources Defense Council and Ethyl Corp pretty much locked that down. The other defense of a "broad interpretation of the CAA" is pretty well stonewalled by "plain language" of the relevant code sections.

But I wouldn't call the court's 5-4 split as related to environmental issues. It could have been legislation on teddy bears and the underlying ConLaw issues would have turned out similarly.

I just wonder how this will be used. The USSC has given the EPA authority to poke it's nose into anything now.

Actually, the decision limits the EPA's authority. Okay - for a horribly truncated (and painfully unnuanced) version - under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is supposed to make an "endangerment finding" which determines whether a chemical compound (to paraphrase) represents a pollutant of some time proscribed by the CAA. Once the Administrator makes the finding, it's supposed to be regulated.

In this case, the Administrator declined to make an endangerment finding on greenhouse gases (specifically CO2) by reference to external policy matters exclusive of ruling on their possible global warming effect. The majority pointed out that those reasons are outside of the Administrator's authority - it needs to be done on a scientific basis, not a larger policy basis.

This is what limits the EPA's authority - the investigations cited in the CNN article are what the EPA's supposed to be doing already. The point is they can't short circuit their statutory obligations because someone made the policy decision that regulating these things might hurt say oil companies or what not.

How does this limit it? Now the EPA has to regulate emmissions from cars, powerplants, and anything else that puts off carbon dioxide. Including propane, wood/slash burning, breathing, cattle/dairy farms (which also produce methane) and many other things which could be 'green house gasses'.

You know... I would rather have the EPA regulating flatulence than the federal government being allowed to open our mail, tap our phone lines and have access and control over everybody's private information.

I guess when people are breathing nothing but carbon dioxide, they'll wish the EPA would have had more control.

~Killthorne~

Zakharra wrote:How does this limit it? Now the EPA has to regulate emmissions from cars, powerplants, and anything else that puts off carbon dioxide. Including propane, wood/slash burning, breathing, cattle/dairy farms (which also produce methane) and many other things which could be 'green house gasses'.

Because they always had not only the right but the requirement to do so. CAA wasn't meant to apply just to compounds that made you green within a minute of breathing them, but to those which had a notable environmental impact. The SCT decision doesn't change the EPA's mandate in any way - but instead puts an active constraint on the rationales that may be employed in an endangerment finding. Essentially the EPA was arguing that they had broader discretion to make those sorts of decisions and the Court told them to sod off. They're just technical bureaucrats.

Technically, the Court's decision doesn't require the EPA to regulate these things. It just forces it to actually follow the procedure for an endangerment finding properly - only if it's determined that CO2/GHGs meet the standard should it be regulated. Now of course that sets us up for the cage match to the death between Gore and Bush, but that's a separate question altogether.

To clarify, the net consequence of it may be more EPA regulation - but they always had this authority in the first place. The actual legal content was limiting the EPA's discretionary authority.

lol epa already can't do it's job on what they already have on their plate. They just don't have the man power. Hell the amount of epa employee's that have taken bribes would shock your mind. My information on this is 7 years old but i wonder how many have moved up the latter now?

If you're one of those folks losing your mind over the issue, I offer you a little peace of mind:

http://www.escapeartist.com/OREQ14/Arch ... World.html

I'll see your floating Dutch houses, and raise.



Note the byline.

I call.

• Dutch Floating House: 350,000 Euros
• Cost of a Tow: 100 Euros
• Worst Case Rise in Sea Level: 16"
• Finding a Nice Spot of Ocean Front Property: Priceless
  
  

Yar! The Crimson Permanent Assurance will loot your petty floating houses!

ayergo wrote:Yar! The Crimson Permanent Assurance will loot your petty floating houses!

You win.