LAST WEEK, as the nation’s attention was on the Supreme Court and
health care, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued a ringing ruling
concerning America’s response to global warming that does two critical
things. First, it emphatically dismisses arguments that the science is
too uncertain to justify federal action. Second, it assures Congress
that, if lawmakers don’t act on global warming, the courts won’t stop
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from doing so independently of
Congress, using the powers the EPA has under the Clean Air Act. Both
should persuade lawmakers to develop, at long last, a comprehensive
response to climate change instead of leaving the job to the EPA’s
command-and-control regulation.
In 2007, the Supreme Court — in Massachusetts v. EPA — ruled that the Clean Air Act required the EPA to determine whether it must regulate greenhouse gases as it does more familiar air pollutants, such as the gases that form smog. Following these orders, the agency determined shortly thereafter that it must, and it began the process of writing rules that hit some of the nation’s largest emitters, such as coal-burning power plants. In response, dozens of these companies sued, arguing that the EPA had overzealously interpreted the law and had relied on uncertain science.
In a wide-ranging decision, the D.C. Circuit rejected those claims. The judges were most powerful when they discarded arguments that the EPA improperly relied on outside studies that were inadequate to declare human activity the “root cause” of dangerous climate change. The ruling describes a “substantial” case for concern about human-induced global warming that the EPA amassed.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-epa-wins-for-sciences-sake/2012/07/04/gJQANbN6NW_print.html
In 2007, the Supreme Court — in Massachusetts v. EPA — ruled that the Clean Air Act required the EPA to determine whether it must regulate greenhouse gases as it does more familiar air pollutants, such as the gases that form smog. Following these orders, the agency determined shortly thereafter that it must, and it began the process of writing rules that hit some of the nation’s largest emitters, such as coal-burning power plants. In response, dozens of these companies sued, arguing that the EPA had overzealously interpreted the law and had relied on uncertain science.
In a wide-ranging decision, the D.C. Circuit rejected those claims. The judges were most powerful when they discarded arguments that the EPA improperly relied on outside studies that were inadequate to declare human activity the “root cause” of dangerous climate change. The ruling describes a “substantial” case for concern about human-induced global warming that the EPA amassed.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-epa-wins-for-sciences-sake/2012/07/04/gJQANbN6NW_print.html
No comments:
Post a Comment