SCOTUS: The EPA has the authority to regulate GHG from cars

[Thorgrim]

A victory for those fighting Global Warming:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

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.


Split court rules against Bush on greenhouse gases - CNN.com

This is why I, and many of the progressive leaning people on this board, who roll their eyes at the thought of electing Hillary, will end up doing so in November 08...Judges like Alito and Roberts grilled the US States who brought suit against the US government, using every oil industry talking point against the states in their oral arguments

The conservative 4 were less interested in looking at the law and seperating the facts in an objective manner, but tried to politicize the issue...eventually it went down "party lines" with Kennedy as always now, deciding which way it would go

Really, do you want Clarence Thomas or Justice Breyer deciding the future of our country? You can imagine every ruling on torture, the rights of citizens, completely moving towards a police state

Which would you rather, 4 years of Hillary, or 10-20 years of losing our rights to a GOP president and authoritarian-leaning supreme court that never reverses Bush's actions

[Ardentfrost]

I'm all for reducing emissions. However, there'll still be the whole "the gov't is above the EPA" thing...

On the other hand, is this just for American made cars? Because according to that Inconvient Truth movie, foreign cars already blow American made cars out of the water as far as emissions goes. I know my car is a ULEV rated vehicle, and it's Japanese. And foreign cars are bought far more than American cars.

Do you have anything that tells us exactly what this MEANS to people and manufs?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm all for reducing emissions. However, there'll still be the whole "the gov't is above the EPA" thing...

On the other hand, is this just for American made cars? Because according to that Inconvient Truth movie, foreign cars already blow American made cars out of the water as far as emissions goes. I know my car is a ULEV rated vehicle, and it's Japanese. And foreign cars are bought far more than American cars.

Do you have anything that tells us exactly what this MEANS to people and manufs?

Just that they could be facing recommendations, before even the idea was precluded

[Ardentfrost]

so, this doesn't mean anything except that the EPA gets more jurisdiction that it may or may not have/need to exercise?

[Phantom]

Is there some reason the EPA has to have a say in this in addition to Congress?

[RMNIXON]

If something like CO2 is classed as a polutant how can you say this ruling only applies to cars or just our cars and not imports? I think this will have far reaching legal consequences and get ready for the lawyers.......

[Diesel66]

in for exhaust and smogging on cattle. Since they are the bigget GHG polluters in this area.

[Kytro]

All the ruling does ia allow the EPA to regulate, it does not force them too. Previously the EPA claimed they were not legally able too regulate, now they can.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

so, this doesn't mean anything except that the EPA gets more jurisdiction that it may or may not have/need to exercise?

From my post in the lab:

If you read the opinion, you'll see that essentially all they've done is give the EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse gases, and told them to reevaluate their decision not to regulate those emissions in new cars.

It doesn't tell them they HAVE to regulate, nor does it remove their discretionary authority to decide, just that it must exercise that discretion to conform with the Clean Air Act's criteria.

There wont be any drastic changes with this ruling.

[Thorgrim]

It's a huge victory for pro-Kyoto environmentalists, so now when our new president takes office he can just tell the EPA to comply with Kyoto and sign the accords

[grembert]

Those are interesting comments because Nashville's main paper has for headlines " High Court calls for action on emissions " . According to the article, state have the right to sue the EPA if that agency's actions are not conforming to the Clean Air Act.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's a huge victory for pro-Kyoto environmentalists, so now when our new president takes office he can just tell the EPA to comply with Kyoto and sign the accords

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!


huge victory, and kyoto...now there is a complete dichotomy of logic...


kyoto is was, and will be joke...

it has nothing to do with solving environmental issues...why...simply...it only impacts the states, and carries no impact on those with the greatest impact on the holy grail of ghg...CO2...As soon as you convince/force China to limit their coal fired electric plants (rate of 1 new one a day) coming on line...then you might have an impact...till then...it is just a political agenda to tax richer countries...

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's a huge victory for pro-Kyoto environmentalists, so now when our new president takes office he can just tell the EPA to comply with Kyoto and sign the accords

this is off topic but I noticed you said "when our new president takes office he can" Does this mean you don't think Hillary will win?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by smokie700

this is off topic but I noticed you said "when our new president takes office he can" Does this mean you don't think Hillary will win?

I think Obama's numbers are going to shock people, and when it comes down to it, it's between Obama and Edwards, I put Hillary as 3rd most likely, with Richardson as 4th

I hope for Richardson, I'll be happy with Edwards, I'll take Obama, and I'll be temporarily disappointed with Hillary...but ill be phoning people from philly regardless...

Thing is, if Richardson or Edwards wins...Dems have a good chance at getting 60 senate seats by 2010 and unlike the 1960s, they don't have to worry about party defections from the south, and can usher in the New New Deal

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's a huge victory for pro-Kyoto environmentalists, so now when our new president takes office he can just tell the EPA to comply with Kyoto and sign the accords

So you want the new president to ignore the wishes of 98 Senators ?