EPA ruling gives Obama clean slate to build the clean economy

Breaking news at Desmogblog. Kevin Grandia is as surprised as I:

Wow. A decision by the Environmental Protection Agency today has ruled that all new and proposed coal-fired power plants must have their carbon dioxide emissions regulated.

The implications are very opportune, according to John Spalding, attorney of the Sierra Club, who successfully prosecuted the case:

Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.

How very opportune. What a gift for the Obama Administration. The times, they are a changing.

 Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Bush forced to regulate carbon dioxide from cars

In enormous news for the mitigation of global warming, the US Supreme Court has forced their federal government to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars. The directive forces the Bush Administration into a major policy u-turn: :::[CNN]

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.

The EPA had previously argued that the tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases were out of its jurisdiction. A coalition of 12 states and 13 environmental organisations, frustrated with Bush Administration inaction and obstruction on global warming, took the EPA to court:

The court had three questions before it.

--Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

--Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

--Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

Justice Stevens' says his position "involves no judgement on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem". The decision clears the way for the state of California to gain EPA approval for its own programme to limit tailpipe emissions. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval of standards that are stricter than national norms.

This is world-changing. California was the first state to introduce laws requiring catalytic converters to eliminate toxicity from fuel emissions, in 1975. This had implications for the rest of the world as it embraced the change. An additional benefit was the phasing out of high-octane leaded petrol that masks the effect of catalytic conversion.

Global Warning Climate Change Environment CO2 Kyoto Energy

Carbon dioxide in the dock

In a week's time Massachusetts and allies, a coalition of state and nonprofit groups, get their day in court to sue the EPA for refusing to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emitted from motor vehicles and other greenhouse gases. :::[Gristmill]. After losing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently, Massachusetts has convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to consider two specific questions:

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