Massachusetts v. EPA
#1. "Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under [the Clean Air Act]", and
#2. "whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in [the Clean Air Act]".
Put simply, the certiorari are to decide whether the EPA has the duty to regulate carbon as a pollutant and, if so, do they have a right to not do their job properly? The EPA will be arguing that they have the right to choose the defintion of what a pollutant is?
Ohh boy. This is exciting. The first oral arguments will be heard at 10:00 AM on November 29th, and Gristmill's Justin Pidot will be slicing and dicing the transcripts as they become available.
I wonder what disinformation campaign about the role of excess CO2 the CEI will come up with this time around? I am still stuffing my entrails back into my sides after their "Carbon Dioxide: They call it Pollution, We call it Life" TVC effort did the rounds on commercial television in the US. Are they really going to take this Supreme Court assault lying down? Is their funding drying up?
Other blogs on: global warming climate change massachusetts epa clean air act