Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Erroneous Diary Title (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim

    The 75 ppb standard under discussion is for the sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards addressing 1 hour averages of SO2 in the ambient air at groundlevel
    outside an industrial property fence line.

    The Supreme Court decision is not about control of greenhouse gases but instead over the contested matter of the acceptability by EPA of its 75 ppb 1 hour NAAQS standards.

    These details are important.   Please get it correct.

    •  i used the reuters legal opinion in quote. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CanyonWren

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 02:29:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then Reuters, a respectable news organization, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        6412093

        was wrong about what they were writing about.

        •  It all seems to come from that one quote... (0+ / 0-)

          from the scientist/former EPA official in Michigan.

          Did he misspeak? Was there some context that Reuters left out?  Was he talking about there being several SCOTUS rulings, including this one and another one about greenhouse gases, that collectively look good for the President's regulatory efforts on climate change?

          That's a weird quote.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 02:47:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Supreme Court decision was about SO2 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            6412093

            ambient air quality standards and not greenhouse gas control, and the quote from the law professor is wrong.

            •  Apparently. And then Reuters made it the headline. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              6412093

              I wonder if they're the ones who mangled the quote in the first place.

              It's funny that no one at Reuters caught that.

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 03:04:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Fundamental Problem is that Lawyers (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joe from Lowell

                often are extremely non-proficient at understanding much of  physical, chemical, engineering, medical and biological sciences....leading intelligent people to make scientifically indefensible statements because of their poor understanding of science.  

                I personally have observed the lawyering conduct of a what would have been a well-paid industry lawyer from a prestigious firm who was so bad at framing scientific and physical terms that the lawyer was unable to ask me effective questions to examine me and my testimony.....stabbing at poor use of words and terminology and fumbling around.....

                Lawyers must be trained to understand, identify and appreciate fundamental concepts in science, mathematics and engineering far better than they presently do.

            •  as explained below (0+ / 0-)

              NAAQS are a potential tool to regulate CO2

              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 06:07:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Lighten up Francis (7+ / 0-)

      Bring the information and politely point it out to the diarist.

      No need for the attitude imo.

    •  Legally, it's a subtle connection. (0+ / 0-)

      You'd have to know the Clean Air Act fairly well I think.  Here, the connection is that CO2 is subject to an endangerment finding, which could be the basis for the EPA to issue a new NAAQS for CO2.  

      Thus, legally, if the Supremes had reined in EPA's authority to issue a rule by requiring a higher standard of certainty than was in play for SO2.  Here, the Supreme Court did not take up the case to force the DC circuit to apply a rule that the NAAQS must be neither higher nor lower than necessary, but allowed the EPA to issue a rule based on the authority to "allow for a margin of safety."  Since meeting that standard for CO2 would be pretty tricky, the fact that the Supreme COurt let the precedent stand may mean the EPA's hand is strengthened when it comes time to regulating CO2 with more teeth.  

      It's a pretty indirect connection, though.

      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 06:07:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site