Justices side with Maine in two air pollution cases
By JOHN RICHARDSON, Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Bush administration must consider limits on carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles as a way to slow global warming.
The landmark decision, which divided the court 5-4, could lead to a range of federal regulations to fight climate change and could help bring more fuel-efficient cars to Maine dealerships as soon as next year.
EPA Lets California Set Vehicle Greenhouse-Gas Limits
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
SACRAMENTO, Calif. â€” Stung by a Supreme Court ruling that it has the authority to establish vehicle emissions standards, the Environmental Protection Agency is allowing California to proceed with efforts to set the nation's first standards to cut tailpipe emissions from cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles.
Since 2005, California has sought an exemption from the federal Clean Air Act that would allow it to set the emissions standards in hopes of reducing greenhouse gases.
This is a bad day for America.
It is a bad day when we find out the government can control pollution levels.
I'm just depressed.
I wanted to pollute more.
During the last million
years, roughly the time during which
humans have existed as a species,
Earth experienced about a dozen
glaciations. During the greatest of
them, about 650,000 years ago, the
Laurentide Continental Ice Sheet,
with its northernmost reaches up
near Hudson Bay, covered Chicago
and points south in ice perhaps a mile
thick. So much water was bound up
in ice that the level of the seas was
about 400 feet lower than it is
Has anyone come up with a reason for these former ice ages and melting periods?? How convenient for scientists to forget natural history when it suits them. They have no problems using natural history to debunk Creationism. Why not the same science to debunk global warming?? The LEFT loves the idea of global warming and hates the idea of there being a God.
Edwards Statement On Supreme Court Decision On Greenhouse Gas Emissions
John Edwards for President
Apr 2, 2007
Chapel Hill, North Carolina â€“ Senator John Edwards released the following statement following today's Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, repudiating the Bush administration's position that it does not have the power to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
"It's officialâ€”the only thing standing between us and a healthier climate is President Bush's refusal to accept the truth about global warming. After today's Supreme Court decision, the president can no longer claim that he lacks the power to address this crisis.
"Global warming is an emergency that calls for immediate action. We need to cap greenhouse gas pollution as soon as possible and reduce it as far as needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
"The choice is not between doing what's right for the economy and doing what's right for the environment. The choice is between doing what's right for both and doing nothing at all."
High Court Hijacks Climate Policy
The problem here is not the hypothesis behind climate change, or the debate over it. The problem is the hysteria that is increasingly driving the debate over what to do about climate change.
That hysteria is now aided by the high court, even though a growing number of scientists, many of them adherents to climate change, are expressing concern about how alarmist voices are driving the debate over best ways to respond to climate change. Those voices are pursuing an agenda that is clearly bent on imposing strict CO2 emissions caps, the economy be damned.
It seems that you cannot measure co2 emissions and state that the total amount is going into the atmosphere without also considering all the items that consume co2 to come up with a net emission. If emission is measurable, then so is de-emission. Where is that number? Where is the science? Facts are missing. Conclusions are everywhere.
[b]In Vermont, court challenge for state regulation of emissions[/b]
By David Gram, April 8, 2007
BURLINGTON, Vt. --A week after the U.S. Supreme Court said vehicle carbon dioxide emissions can be regulated like other pollutants, an effort by several states to do that is about to get its first court test.
California long has been the pacesetter in regulating car emissions, setting tougher limits than those imposed by the federal government.
The Supreme Court Turns the Ratchet
By Christopher Chantrill
Conservatives are properly aghast at the United States Supreme Court's April 2, 2007 decision. It ruled that the United States Environmental Protection Agency can, if it wants, regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, whatever the law may say.
But really, what is so surprising? All they have done, the liberal wing and the moderates, is give the ratchet of compulsion one more turn.
The supere court has not ratified global warming in this decision.
While it may have been mentioned, the key here is this:
The Supremes have decided, on a close vote, that the statutory mandate of the EPA includes the regulation of car exhausts... They have said that car exhaust is a pollutant the EPA has authority to regulate. (I mean of course CO2, but the reason Bush doesn't want to regulate CO2 is the effect on control of car exhaust emissions as well as other similar emissions... and those who emit the CO2 are unfathomably wealth and therefore powerful).
The Supreme court has not sais HOW or WHEN or WHERE to regoulate, it has merely said the EPA CAN regulate.
When the Supremes said that congress can pass laws that affect a business' ability to exclude blacks, conservatives were outraged...
They frequently are.
[b]Clean Air Act Foul[/b]
Thursday, April 12, 2007 - Bangor Daily News
Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide emissions can be regulated by the federal government got a lot of attention last week. Another ruling require power plants and manufacturing facilities to reduce pollution, a decision that should improve air quality in Maine, but only if the Environmental Protection Agency follows through with enforcing the rules. If the agency doesnâ€™t, Congress should close the loophole that allows outdated plants to continue to operate.
[size=18]6" ON THE GROUND NOW[/size]
This will be a huge impact on the [color=red]WARM[/color] Weathah workforce! Millions of dollars a day. Watch the Income Tax Baldez Revenue Next Week.
EPA Delays CO2 Ruling,
Angering Bush Critics
By IAN TALLEY
March 28, 2008; Page A6
WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency will further delay action to determine whether carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare and should be regulated, a year after the Supreme Court ordered the agency to rule on CO2 regulation.
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said the agency would seek public comment this spring on potential regulation of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. The decision will likely let President Bush leave office without having to make a decision.
So what about global cooling?
Snowe Press Release
SNOWE AND FEINSTEIN INTRODUCE MEASURE TO SET DEADLINE FOR EPA TO COMPLETE ENDANGERMENT FINDING ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Measure introduced on one-year anniversary of Supreme Court ruling in landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision
April 2, 2008
Washington, D.C. - "The Administration has a court-mandated obligation that they can no longer ignore. Their deliberate efforts to delay adherence to the Supreme Courtâ€™s decision is reckless and irresponsible," Senator Snowe said. "The Administrationâ€™s response to global warming must coincide with what the science and the American people require."
"The Supreme Court ruled last year that EPA must take steps to determine the public health dangers from global warming. Yet one year later, EPA has failed to act," Senator Feinstein said. "This is unacceptable.
"Senator Snowe and I have introduced a bill that will set a firm deadline for EPA to complete the endangerment finding. We know from reports that the work has already been done. All that remains is for the finding to be issued. We also set a deadline for the Agency to reconsider its unprecedented denial of Californiaâ€™s waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions. Bottom line: EPA must fulfill its responsibility to protect the environment and public health from global warming."
The Feinstein-Snowe bill would require that:
Â· Within 60 days of enactment, EPA must comply with the Supreme Courtâ€™s Massachusetts v. EPA ruling to complete an endangerment finding to determine whether the emissions of greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, and then comply with the Clean Air Act requirements that result from this determination.
Â· No later than June 30, 2009, EPA must reconsider its decision to deny the State of California a Clean Air Act waiver that would have allowed the state to limit tailpipe greenhouse gas pollution from cars and trucks.
The legislation comes in the wake of EPA Administrator Johnsonâ€™s announcement last week that the agency is not prepared to issue an endangerment finding. Instead, Johnson stated, the Agency will begin a process of soliciting comments from the public as they "consider" regulations of greenhouse gas emissions, and that the process will begin at some indeterminate point "later this spring."
EPA has had a full year to collect public comment and consider the implications of its response, and it has done so. EPA staff told Congress that they spent thousands of hours writing an endangerment finding and proposed regulations this past autumn. A draft has already been submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget.