Will this court case spur serious US action?

Question

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iqGMrzmNKuHg8Hmz_YBFYQvY4J4AD8VPQO080

The States are asking the Court to compel EPA to act (presumably by issuing regulations) within 60 days.

The Court has repeatedly said EPA was wrong. They have decided that CO2 IS a pollutant (since it's a legal term, not a scientific one, they get to make that decision). They have said EPA was wrong in saying this didn't require action under the Clean Air Act.

But they just said EPA had to do something, without saying when. So EPA has been stalling. Will the Court now set a deadline?

Answer 1

Bob, during the Bush Administration The EPA has declined to enforce even when they had a very clear law and regulation.  The States that could afford it took them to the Supreme Court sometimes, and the Court always ruled for the States, but shouldn't we get the Law Enforcement we pay taxes for?  It isn't cheap to adjudicate before the Supreme Court, and States can't always afford to do it over every issue.  Pollution has always been about delaying tactics that allow the polluter to continue to make money as long as possible.  The only difference is now they have an accomplice within Government.

Answer 2

I can't believe how much the EPA is dragging its feet on this issue.  Protecting the environment is supposed to be the entire purpose of the EPA!

I suspect the courts will set a deadline, since the EPA is still failing to issue regulations despite the Supreme Court ruling.

Answer 3

How would they clean up CO2 in the first place ?

The court is WRONG in making law or policy, thats not their job !

What's next, the EPA says you made too much CO2, turn off your furnace, now ?

Answer 4

All the EPA has to do is issue a policy...the policy could state they're going to "monitor the situation" at this time....5 more years of legal battles and AGW should be a non-issue anyway.

Edit:  Your link will no longer work for me.  Here's another about the case:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23919234/

From the above link:

"The Supreme Court said in April 2007 that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is a pollutant subject to the Clean Air Act. The court directed the EPA to determine if carbon dioxide emissions, linked to global warming, endanger public health and welfare.

If that is the case, the court said, the EPA must regulate the emissions."

So the EPA determines CO2 is hazardous at levels exceeding 5% concentration or 50,000 ppm (which it is) and issues a policy stating they will periodically test designated street corners throughout the nation for concentrations approaching this level.  Should levels become hazardous, steps will be taken.  

In other words:  We'll monitor the situation at this time.

Answer 5

Leftist want their socialism spread.  They can't do it in the ballot box so they do it through the courtsunder the guise of protecting the environment.  Ignorant people allow this nonsense.  Some people are ignorant enough and gullible enough to actually believe they are actually protecting the planet.  Promoting capitalism will protect the planet more.  I can almost understand a teenager believing that tripe but someone that has reached beyond their 20s should be mature and experienced enough to recognize the hype and tripe and reject the attack on our industry and consequently our way of life while using junk science to promote it.

Answer 6

with this ruling as precedent the court could also rule that oxygen & nitrogen are also pollutants.

a good example of what brought this situation about, is Californias repressive environmental edicts  have caused many industrys to move to Nevada.

its an interesting case & an attempt to level the playing field as far as industry. it could result in federal standards having pre emption over any state variation.

more federal control is something the federal bureaucracy is always interested in.

Answer 7

Anyone with an ounce of chemistry knowledge knows that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.  How could this court be so uneducated on chemistry?

What's next for these environmental nuts?   Will they dictate that water is a pollutant ?

Well, we can thank them for the increase in gas prices, food prices and everything else that will now increase in costs in order to keep this AGW hoax alive.

They're working extremely hard to put us into a recession.  

That's why people get so hot about this issue.  It's bankrupting the country over a theory that has no merit and is bent on hurting the middle class and poor the most.

Answer 8

Sure, then it will be appealed, and on and on and on,   so we win in the end.   Get real science not emotional lunacy, then come back and talk about it.

Answer 9

CO2 is not a pollutant.

The Supreme Court is simply wrong.

The EPA is 100% correct in dragging its feet on this one.

Answer 10

I'll believe the EPA. They'd know better than the Attorneys. So you're taking the side of attorney generals over the EPA? What happened to facts over politics.

Answer 11

Administrator Johnson is obviously trying to drag his feet until the next administration.  

The interesting question is how CO2 will be regulated from now on.  The possible next step would be to require a company to conduct a New Source Review (NSR) or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review whenever they modify their process to increase CO2 above a certain threshold.  

Currently, the other criteria pollutants have fairly small thresholds (e.g. sulfur dioxide has a 40 ton per year threshold).  What threshold would we establish for CO2?  1000 tons per year?  Remember, a coal power plant spews a million tons of CO2 per year.  Any change at all would trigger a PSD or NSR review for CO2 (if the threshold is set at 1000 tons per year).    If you set the threshold too high (say 100,000 tons per year of CO2), many smaller plants would never trigger NSR/PSD.  

Also, let's say an NSR or PSD analysis is done on CO2.  So what?  There aren't any options for add-on controls to facilities.  The PSD/NSR analysis wouldn't reduce CO2 at all, if the regulations are implemented as they are currently written.  

By the way, industry hates PSD/NSR because it delays them from making changes to their plants.  If an PSD/NSR permit is required at a very low CO2 threshold, it delays a project by more than a year before it can get started.  If you add CO2 to the mix, it would create significant red tape that companies want to avoid.  

That being said, the EPA has to figure out something.  This is why the Supreme Court ruling was such a big decision.