http://www.azag.gov/...
Attorney General Terry Goddard today filed a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting arguments that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate climate change pollutants from motor vehicle exhaust.
The case, Massachusetts v. EPA, stems from a 2003 EPA decision to reject a request from several states asking the federal agency to regulate pollutants that contribute to climate change. EPA concluded that it did not have authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate these pollutants. They are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs).
HERE IS THE FULL RELEASE:
Terry Goddard Challenges EPA's Decision on Car Emissions
(Phoenix, Ariz. * Aug. 31, 2006) Attorney General Terry Goddard today filed a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting arguments that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate climate change pollutants from motor vehicle exhaust.
The case, Massachusetts v. EPA, stems from a 2003 EPA decision to reject a request from several states asking the federal agency to regulate pollutants that contribute to climate change. EPA concluded that it did not have authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate these pollutants. They are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs).
Goddard's brief argues that the agency's refusal to act makes it more difficult to regulate climate change pollutants from vehicles because it prevents a nationwide approach. Vehicles and pollutants both routinely cross state borders. He also maintains that the EPA's decision has the effect of preempting state efforts to reduce these pollutants. Automobile manufacturers and dealers have already argued in pending cases that, because of the EPA's decision, states cannot regulate climate change pollutants from motor vehicles.
"The EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act is wrong," Goddard said. "The agency's decision interferes with state efforts to protect citizens from the long-range impact of climate change, including the potential for prolonged drought, severe forest fires, warmer temperatures, increased snowmelt, reduced snow pack and other effects."
Attorneys General from Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin joined Arizona's friend of the court brief.
###
Here is a great editorial by ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE East Valley Tribune attacking Terry over this issue:
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/...
A group of state attorneys general, led by Arizona's Terry Goddard, believe the states should have more authority to act where the federal government doesn't want to go. If they get their way, we could see further disruptions in the American auto industry as manufacturers would be forced to further change designs from state to state.
Goddard and four peers filed a brief in late August asking the Supreme Court to side with Massachusetts in a legal fight with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Massachusetts' officials have joined a variety of environmentalists in trying to force President Bush's administration to regulate emissions of gases, primarily carbon dioxide, believed to be linked to global warming.
If Goddard and his colleagues manage to sway the Supreme Court, Congress will need to revisit the question of who should be regulating vehicle manufacturing.
Also, here is a release from the Environmental News Services:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/...
"Implementing these recommendations should cut our demand for energy by increasing energy efficiency, and improve air quality, all the while saving Arizonans money through reduced fuel costs and lower electricity bills," Napolitano said. "Developing Arizona's renewable energy sources, such as solar, biomass, biofuels, wind and geothermal will help us reach those goals, and at the same time, create jobs. It's a win-win for all of us."
Last month Arizona filed a friend of the court brief supporting environmentalists and states challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobile exhaust.
"The EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act is wrong," said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard. "The agency's decision interferes with state efforts to protect citizens from the long-range impact of climate change, including the potential for prolonged drought, severe forest fires, warmer temperatures, increased snowmelt, reduced snow pack and other effects."