High Court Tells EPA to Consider Global Warming Steps

The vote was,however 5 to 4, with the Neanderthal wing
of the court voting against Global Warming.

In fact, it means little since there is no real
will to do something concrete.

And meanwhile, in Europe, the German madmen will
continue to burn up the Autobahns at 240 km/hr.

*****


High Court Tells EPA to Consider Global Warming Steps



By Greg Stohr

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Bush administration
environmental officials to reconsider their refusal to regulate
greenhouse-gas emissions, giving a boost to advocates of stronger action
against global warming.

The justices, voting 5-4, today said the Environmental Protection Agency
didn't follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act in 2003 when it opted
not to order cuts in carbon emissions from new cars and trucks.

``EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether
greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,'' Justice John Paul
Stevens wrote for the majority.

The ruling doesn't necessarily mean the EPA will have to impose new
regulations. Still, it adds to growing pressure on the administration, which
has resisted mandatory limits on carbon emissions. The decision is a setback
for General Motors Corp. and other automakers and for utilities with
coal-fired plants, including American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co.

Environmentalists and 12 states, including California and Massachusetts,
are seeking to force the federal agency to limit emissions from new cars and
trucks. New York is leading a separate state effort to curb power-plant
emissions.

The decision also bolsters efforts by California and other states to enact
their own climate-change regulations. In challenging those rules, automakers
have pointed to the EPA's conclusion that carbon dioxide isn't an ``air
pollutant'' subject to federal and state regulation under the U.S. Clean Air
Act.

The majority today rejected the agency's conclusion. ``Greenhouse gases fit
well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air pollutant,'''
Stevens wrote.

Four Dissenters

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and
Samuel Alito dissented.

Roberts said the court lacked constitutional power to second-guess the
agency at the behest of states and environmental groups. The majority's
reasoning ``has caused us to transgress the proper -- and properly limited
-- role of the courts in a democratic society,'' he wrote.

Scalia said the court ``has no business substituting its own desired
outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.''

Environmentalists hailed the decision. ``The ruling is a total rejection of
the Bush administration's refusal to use its existing authority to meet the
challenge posed by global warming,'' Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive
director, said in a statement.

United Nations

Though having less than 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S.
produces 22 percent of the planet's man-made carbon- dioxide emissions, more
than any other country, according to Energy Department figures.

Earlier this year a United Nations panel concluded that global warming is
``unequivocal'' and that human activities are ``very likely'' the primary
cause. The report forecast a rise in sea levels of 7 to 23 inches by 2100.

Separately today, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas
blasted the U.S. for ``having a negative attitude in international
negotiations'' on climate change. ``It is absolutely necessary that they
move,'' Dimas said.

Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation to cap emissions. In
January, five other U.S. power producers endorsed a proposal that would
reduce emissions from electricity providers by 25 percent of projected
levels by 2020.

`Piecemeal' Approach

The EPA said in 2003 that it wouldn't regulate greenhouse- gas emissions
from new vehicles, pointing to ``substantial scientific uncertainty'' about
the effects of climate change on human health and the environment and about
the best means to address the issue.

The Supreme Court today said that reasoning was insufficient to meet the
statute's requirements. The Clean Air Act instructs the EPA to regulate air
pollutants that ``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.''

``If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from
making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to
global warming, EPA must say so,'' Stevens wrote.

The agency also said unilateral EPA regulation would undermine the
president's ability to persuade developing countries to cut their emissions.

Stevens said foreign policy considerations were for the State Department to
assess, not the EPA.

Standing to Sue

In addition, the agency said Congress hasn't given it authority to regulate
greenhouse gases, regardless of what the scientific evidence showed.

The Bush administration said the Clean Air Act confers broad discretion on
the EPA to decide whether to regulate. The government also contended that
the states lack the legal standing to sue because they can't show they would
reap any environmental benefit from EPA regulation.

Stevens rejected that argument. He pointed to Massachusetts's contention
that its coastline is already being damaged by rising sea levels.

``A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions
increases, no matter what happens elsewhere,'' Stevens wrote.

he german madmen have just one word for you and it begins with "Sch..." !

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
The vote was,however 5 to 4, with the Neanderthal wing
of the court voting against Global Warming.

In fact, it means little since there is no real
will to do something concrete.

And meanwhile, in Europe, the German madmen will
continue to burn up the Autobahns at 240 km/hr.

*****


High Court Tells EPA to Consider Global Warming Steps



By Greg Stohr

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Bush administration
environmental officials to reconsider their refusal to regulate
greenhouse-gas emissions, giving a boost to advocates of stronger action
against global warming.

The justices, voting 5-4, today said the Environmental Protection Agency
didn't follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act in 2003 when it opted
not to order cuts in carbon emissions from new cars and trucks.

``EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide
whether
greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,'' Justice John
Paul
Stevens wrote for the majority.

The ruling doesn't necessarily mean the EPA will have to impose new
regulations. Still, it adds to growing pressure on the administration,
which
has resisted mandatory limits on carbon emissions. The decision is a
setback
for General Motors Corp. and other automakers and for utilities with
coal-fired plants, including American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co.

Environmentalists and 12 states, including California and Massachusetts,
are seeking to force the federal agency to limit emissions from new cars
and
trucks. New York is leading a separate state effort to curb power-plant
emissions.

The decision also bolsters efforts by California and other states to enact
their own climate-change regulations. In challenging those rules,
automakers
have pointed to the EPA's conclusion that carbon dioxide isn't an ``air
pollutant'' subject to federal and state regulation under the U.S. Clean
Air
Act.

The majority today rejected the agency's conclusion. ``Greenhouse gases
fit
well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air pollutant,'''
Stevens wrote.

Four Dissenters

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
and
Samuel Alito dissented.

Roberts said the court lacked constitutional power to second-guess the
agency at the behest of states and environmental groups. The majority's
reasoning ``has caused us to transgress the proper -- and properly limited
-- role of the courts in a democratic society,'' he wrote.

Scalia said the court ``has no business substituting its own desired
outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.''

Environmentalists hailed the decision. ``The ruling is a total rejection
of
the Bush administration's refusal to use its existing authority to meet
the
challenge posed by global warming,'' Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's
executive
director, said in a statement.

United Nations

Though having less than 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S.
produces 22 percent of the planet's man-made carbon- dioxide emissions,
more
than any other country, according to Energy Department figures.

Earlier this year a United Nations panel concluded that global warming is
``unequivocal'' and that human activities are ``very likely'' the primary
cause. The report forecast a rise in sea levels of 7 to 23 inches by 2100.

Separately today, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas
blasted the U.S. for ``having a negative attitude in international
negotiations'' on climate change. ``It is absolutely necessary that they
move,'' Dimas said.

Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation to cap emissions. In
January, five other U.S. power producers endorsed a proposal that would
reduce emissions from electricity providers by 25 percent of projected
levels by 2020.

`Piecemeal' Approach

The EPA said in 2003 that it wouldn't regulate greenhouse- gas emissions
from new vehicles, pointing to ``substantial scientific uncertainty''
about
the effects of climate change on human health and the environment and
about
the best means to address the issue.

The Supreme Court today said that reasoning was insufficient to meet the
statute's requirements. The Clean Air Act instructs the EPA to regulate
air
pollutants that ``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or
welfare.''

``If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from
making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to
global warming, EPA must say so,'' Stevens wrote.

The agency also said unilateral EPA regulation would undermine the
president's ability to persuade developing countries to cut their
emissions.

Stevens said foreign policy considerations were for the State Department
to
assess, not the EPA.

Standing to Sue

In addition, the agency said Congress hasn't given it authority to
regulate
greenhouse gases, regardless of what the scientific evidence showed.

The Bush administration said the Clean Air Act confers broad discretion on
the EPA to decide whether to regulate. The government also contended that
the states lack the legal standing to sue because they can't show they
would
reap any environmental benefit from EPA regulation.

Stevens rejected that argument. He pointed to Massachusetts's contention
that its coastline is already being damaged by rising sea levels.

``A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global
emissions
increases, no matter what happens elsewhere,'' Stevens wrote.