EPA Requests 230,000 New Bureaucrats To Regulate "Greenhouse Gases"

[Fern]

Didn't SCOTUS rule that CO2 was a pollutant under the definition of the Clean Air Act in EPA v. Massachusetts?

I've only looked at Wiki's summary of the case.

According to it, yes. SCOTUS said the definition in the law was so hugely broad that it did include greenhouses gases, of which C02 is one.

Personally I'm very much a skeptic of CO2 with regards to CAGW, and I can see the argument that beginning to enforce the Clean Air Act as limiting on CO2 emissions is activism. But I think the alternate view, that it would be activism to continue ignoring CO2 emissions in light of the SCOTUS decision, holds a bit more weight. And while I very much disagree with the actual SCOTUS decision, I don't want the EPA to ignore it. The law should be what it is, whether or not I agree with it, and where the law is wrong, it should be changed rather than ignored.

As usual with any SCOTUS case, they ruled quite narrowly. This ruling was specifically about auto emissions.

Accordingly, I think SCOTUS needs to revisit it if anyone wants to extend this decision to other areas.

If it is put to the SCOTUS in this context, the SCOTUS must struggle with the question of Congressional intent when taking into account the obvious absurdity, the impossibility of following the clear language of law as passed by Congress. I suspect a different outcome, if only because of the sheer impossibility of following Congress's clear language elsewhere in the law precludes the intent of Congress that C02 ever be managed in this way.

And I saw nothing in the Mass case that authorizes the EPA to deviate from Congress's otherwise clearly enumerated provisions of the law. Quite the contrary actually. The EPA was old to revisit their position and come up with a better reason to administratively ignore the actual letter of the law.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I think required is a strong word here. They gave them the discretion to consider CO2 and greenhouse gases air pollutants. Again, there is no law passed requiring this, only legislation from the bench with the opinion that it should or could be considered a pollutant. Fern's original statement is correct.

No, it's not. The decision held as follows:

1.) The court denied the EPA's case that greenhouse gases did not fall under the CAA so they could not be regulated, ruling as follows:

Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles...

2.) The EPA said that even if it did fit that definition that it would decline to regulate them. The court denied this argument as well, saying that the EPA has no choice but to regulate them if they are determined to be an air pollutant. (as they just were) Quote from the ruling as follows:

EPA’s alternative basis for its decision—that even if it has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would be unwise to do so at this time—rests on reasoning divorced from the statutory text. While the statute conditions EPA action on its formation of a “judgment,” that judgment must relate to whether an air pollutant “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”. Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President’s ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment.

Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

The EPA was unable or unwilling to do so in the years after the decision, even under the Bush administration. Since they were unable to come up with a valid justification, the decision absolutely and unequivocally requires them to EDIT: (make a finding on regulating) it. Please learn about shit before opening your mouth.

 

[fskimospy]

I've only looked at Wiki's summary of the case.

According to it, yes. SCOTUS said the definition in the law was so hugely broad that it did include greenhouses gases, of which C02 is one.



As usual with any SCOTUS case, they ruled quite narrowly. This ruling was specifically about auto emissions.

Accordingly, I think SCOTUS needs to revisit it if anyone wants to extend this decision to other areas.

If it is put to the SCOTUS in this context, the SCOTUS must struggle with the question of Congressional intent when taking into account the obvious absurdity, the impossibility of following the clear language of law as passed by Congress. I suspect a different outcome, if only because of the sheer impossibility of following Congress's clear language elsewhere in the law precludes the intent of Congress that C02 ever be managed in this way.

And I saw nothing in the Mass case that authorizes the EPA to deviate from Congress's otherwise clearly enumerated provisions of the law. Quite the contrary actually. The EPA was old to revisit their position and come up with a better reason to administratively ignore the actual letter of the law.

Fern

They called the EPA's ruling arbitrary and capricious, and then said that such a ruling was impermissible, considering the fact that greenhouse gases were air pollutants. The EPA was unwilling or unable to do so, therefore the court ruling clearly requires them to make a finding on the regulation of it. (they must prove the case for inaction if something is determined to be a pollutant)

 

[Fern]

-snip-

I understand all that. But that's in the context of regulating tail pipe emissions of autos. There is nothing remotely impossible about that.

But you're are dodging the questions of how to reconcile supposed Congressional intent with the impossibility of doing so, and the EPA's choice to ignore the letter of the law and create it's rules when there is no authority to do so.

I hope it eventually gets to the SCOTUS, I'm curious how they will reconcile these things.

Fern

 

[xBiffx]

No, it's not. The decision held as follows:

1.) The court denied the EPA's case that greenhouse gases did not fall under the CAA so they could not be regulated, ruling as follows:


2.) The EPA said that even if it did fit that definition that it would decline to regulate them. The court denied this argument as well, saying that the EPA has no choice but to regulate them if they are determined to be an air pollutant. (as they just were) Quote from the ruling as follows:



The EPA was unable or unwilling to do so in the years after the decision, even under the Bush administration. Since they were unable to come up with a valid justification, the decision absolutely and unequivocally requires them to EDIT: (make a finding on regulating) it. Please learn about shit before opening your mouth.

No where is the language REQUIRED used. The ruling simply says they CAN regulate.

 

[fskimospy]

No where is the language REQUIRED used. The ruling simply says they CAN regulate.

Go read the actual decision. I quoted you the relevant parts, but if you didn't understand it the full decision will explain it better to you.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh and an update. You know how I said this story was probably bullshit? Shocking revelation: it was bullshit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64582.html

TLDR: The EPA was arguing that it would need to hire 230,000 employees at a cost of $21 billion if the rules being challenged by the lawsuit were BLOCKED, not that so many employees were actually necessary.

 

[woolfe9999]

Oh and an update. You know how I said this story was probably bullshit? Shocking revelation: it was bullshit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64582.html

TLDR: The EPA was arguing that it would need to hire 230,000 employees at a cost of $21 billion if the rules being challenged by the lawsuit were BLOCKED, not that so many employees were actually necessary.

Actually Fern already posted a link to the EPA brief that said exactly that. The EPA was arguing AGAINST having to hire that many people, not for it.

Amazing though, Fern posted that a couple days ago and I'm the first person to call for the thread title to be changed. It is totally false and needs to be changed.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually Fern already posted a link to the EPA brief that said exactly that. The EPA was arguing AGAINST having to hire that many people, not for it.

Amazing though, Fern posted that a couple days ago and I'm the first person to call for the thread title to be changed. It is totally false and needs to be changed.

Ah crap! I missed it! Scooped by Fern!