Skip to main content

View Diary: Huge: SCOTUS upholds EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Supremes Said EPA regulating (7+ / 0-)

    greenhouse gases was OK years ago in a
    case brought by Massachusetts, if my memory
    is correct.

    My buddy, a law professor, was the chief author of the amicus brief of the climate scientists in that case.

    •  I guess the qualifier is nothing here on CO2 (0+ / 0-)

      and, as you point out the Mass. case, why then the declaration by Prof. Uhlmann quoted in the Reuters piece?

      •  They didn't take the chance to overturn (5+ / 0-)

        Mass. V. EPA.  Also it looks like the court relaxed the standard for EPA to allow regulate based on risks of harm.  

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 05:54:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just finished a white paper for Cleveland Clinic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          beach babe in fl

          on how first responders need to be prepared for the adverse health effects of climate change - which are already happening. Increased incidence of asthma, heatstroke for seniors, emergence of transmisssion vectors for disease in previously "safe" areas, malnutrition due to rising food costs, etc.

          If the Supremes do decide to hear a case that bears on the more common greenhouse gases, they'll have to acknowledge that the medical community is already acting on the conclusion that climate change is adversely affecting human health.

          Reforms come from below. No man with four aces howls for a new deal.
          Keystone XL will raise gas prices!

          by Turbonerd on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 07:32:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Court said the opposite in Mass v EPA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Not that it was OK to regulate, but that it wasn't OK to not regulate.

      EPA, under Bush, refused to regulate CO2, claiming the science wasn't there and even if it was there, no US action would make a difference...and mostly that he agency lacked the authority to regulate CO2, because it isn't a "pollutant."

      The Sup Ct said there was no reasonable basis for that position and basically ordered the agency to issue a finding that CO2 was a pollutant endangering the environment and human health.

      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

      by FischFry on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:29:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site