This probably won't generate as much attention as it deserves, but a unanimous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seems like a pretty big deal.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, throwing out legal challenges by states and industry groups that argued the EPA had exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by declaring that carbon emissions endanger public health.
The decision is a huge victory for the administration's efforts to address climate change in the face of congressional gridlock on the issue and increasing skepticism among Republicans that climate change is a problem the country needs to address.
As court victories go, this decision doesn't just deal with a critically important issue, it was also a one-sided win for the EPA. State GOP officials and a group of polluters went after every aspect of the EPA's climate policy, and they lost badly.
Fairly early on in the Obama presidency, the administration concluded that carbon emissions endanger public health and welfare -- the "endangerment finding" -- which is a key part of regulating emissions through the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs said Obama's EPA couldn't do this, and the appeals court disagreed.
And remember the dreaded "tailoring rule"? Republicans and polluters said the EPA couldn't possibly have this kind of authority, but the appeals court rejected this, too.
Philip Bump went through today's decision in some detail, highlighting the key takeaways: "1. The Court determined that the EPA absolutely has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant.... 2. Even if there were uncertainty about climate science -- the argument advanced by the petitioners -- the entire point of the EPA regulations is to be proactive in addressing problems.... 3. Anyway, the EPA's science on impact is well-reasoned and thorough."
The issue is very likely headed to the Supreme Court, but in the meantime, today hands the Obama administration and those concerned with the climate crisis a big win.
Leave a Comment:
Cue the cries of "activist judges" in 3... 2... 1...
Given the Conservative (far right) Republican makeup of the D.C. Appeals Court, this is a very big deal indeed. They got past people who I would have believed likely to reverse the appeal on ideological grounds.
I love it when real conservatives give the wingnuts a punch in the face like this.
"Real" conservatives did so with the ACA, too. We'll see how much good that did, Thursday.
No problem, says John Roberts. We can undo this. We got Antonin and Clarence.
(And by the way, there isn't any real uncertainty about climate science except on around-the-edges matters. It's warming, it's us, and we need to start doing something about it yesterday.)
Remember that God promised a fire, not a flood, next time.
It seems hot enough for that here in Colorado.
Dang, this was supposed to go under Zora's comment which I had clicked on, right below this one. How do I move it?
Didn't G-d promise after Noah that "he" wouldn't allow US to be destroyed like that again? And then came Hurricane Katrina, but that's cause New Orleans was wickedly sinful and the heathen deserved what they got..../snark
Yep, God will take good care of us. Nothing bad can happen, so I'll just sit under my American chestnut tree, watching the passenger pigeons and Carolina parakeets flying by.
... which will rapidly overturn it in its entirety. Possibly without even bothering to hear arguments. 'Cause apparently that's just the way they roll, these days.
This news makes me happy!
Thank you Mr. Obama. It's just another reason to move business out of the US.
Envirnonmental controls create jobs too! Someone has to make smoke stack scrubbers. But, I guess one could argue that allowing US citizens to suck up more smog also creates jobs for the medical profession.
Yes , we do not need to put up with clean air and water , everyone should just move else where , where they have lots of free polution ...The wing nuts making sense once again
It seems that in the tug of war involving jobs and regulations, you two are in favor of the regulations. I understand your position, but I have to ask... aren't you concerned about unemployment?
I'm interested in both & see no reason we can't have them. This country did very well for 50 years under the Glass-Steagal regulations, & fell right into the hand basket once those regs were removed. Why should that convince me, or anyone else, that environmental regs would be somehow different?
You keep harping on unemployment, Shooter, but you may have missed the news: unemployment is down, purely on private-sector growth. The shrinkage of gov't. jobs has actually gone AGAINST the flow. This is all in recovery from the biggest balls-up in American history financially short of the Great Depression, massive job losses brought on not by regulations but by the fecklessness of an unregulated market gone horribly bad. So, tell me again how "crushing" regulations have gotten, how they're strangling business, when business is doing record-breakingly well? Please do, I can use the amusement.
So let me get my choices right here Shooter , I can have a job , but I have to allow kids to be poisened , that is quite the world you live in ...Go google RIVER ON FIRE IN OHIO some time and get back to us , but we all know you wingers never do
That is right up there with , our budget deficit is killing the economy , but we can not raise taxes to fix the budget , because that will kill jobs too, it is dizzying keeping up with the snake oil lies you people buy into from your DC corporate leaders
Yeah...move those businesses out of the US, because we all know that profits come before our children's health in the eyes of corporations, right??
Ohhh too hot to touch so let's pass it on to the supreme republican court!
After all the Supremes are not subject to being replaced by Obama after the election.
This federal appeals court ruling will help the EPA clean up the mess Big Coal leaves behind. The truth is however, that these court rulings may actually save the coal industry by forcing it to invest in modern technology that is expensive but much more environmentally viable than critics The EPA needs to clamp down on old pulverized coal plants that make up something like 90% of our power production from coal. Most of these old coal power plants should have been replaced with IGCC power plants starting decades ago. IGCC is proven technology and with some more research CO2 sequestration can be readily accomplished on a commercially scale power plant. The coal gasification plant at Buelah, ND has been capturing CO2 and selling it to Canadian oil companies for years. Our old pulverized coal plants are at best 35% thermally efficient. Most of these older pulverized plants are in reality closer to 30% thermally efficient depending upon what sources you read. These older pulverized also create huge amounts of sulpher dioxide, CO2, and particulate matter. IGCC technology is 50% thermally efficient and engineers claim that this technology will be 60% thermally efficient once the 2nd generation of technology matures. This means we can get the same amount of power using one-half the amount of coal with practically zero emissions. Two IGCC plants exist with grants from the Department of Energy in Tampa, Florida and in Indiana. The Tampa plant works very well the IGCC plant in Indiana faces challenges like any new prototype technology that are being resolved..
Natural gas power plants are replacing old pulverized coal plants because natural gas is cheaper. Here is what is likely going to happen. The natural gas fever will run its course and then sober heads will have to prevail. Natural gas is highly sought after by many countries. The global economy will push natural gas prices upwards despite new drilling technologies being utilized particularly hydraulic fracturing. Once natural gas prices go up base load electrical power rates will also increase. The country has plenty of coal. If we could burn coal cleanly in modern IGCC plants with CO2 sequestration pollution, we could become completely energy efficient on our own resources. Natural gas prices would also stabilize.
We should develop both natural gas power plants and IGCC plants. Biomass fuels can also be burned in these types of plants with some technical changes. We need to make basic decisions about our country's base load power future. Old polluting inefficient pulverized coal plants are being rapidly phased out by new combined cycle natural gas plants. Fine, but what happens if there are issues with natural gas supplies that cause prices for natural gas to rise dramatically? Remember, China and India will see its consumption of fossil fuels quadruple by 2030. I am not sure either what is going to happen to our 40 year old nuclear plants. Will we invest in new fast neutron breeder reactors or just shut down our nuclear plants entirely? Soon the age of these old nuclear plants will decide the issue for us by default.
Coal produces about 40% of our base load power today and is projected to decline to 30% by 2020. Nuclear power produces 20% of our base load power today. Solar, wind, and geothermal have a role to play in the future. Base load power still needs to come from some sort of conventional power sources. IGCC, coal gasification, biomass fuels, and modern combined cycle natural gas plants would be the safe bet for our base load power. IGCC technology can also start producing hydrogen on a large commercial scale. Hydrogen fuel cells could boost the thermal efficiency of these IGCC plants to unknown levels perhaps 70% thermal efficiency or higher. But we are many years removed from a hydrogen fuel cell economy. IGCC plants, coal gasification, biomass fuels combined together with CO2 sequestration will help create a hydrogen fuel cell energy system with almost unlimited potential with zero pollution. But first we have to get from where we are today and build a bridge to where we must go tomorrow. IGCC technology can be a major component to building the hydrogen fuel cell economy of tomorrow.
Thanks for posting this Steve , this is why I come to places like the maddow blog , this is a big deal , and thanks to the obama admin , and rex in Minnesota
As was mentioned , it is 20 years to late imo , but it is a welcomed move
I wish to add my thanks for this story. I appreciate Steve's posts, and make sure to read the Maddow blog daily.
Bad news for Romney, who states that the epa is being used to impede our economy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjPAIu9KxImy.
They never say it is what it is, to protect the environment. You are welcome to do business, but in a responsible way. You can't ruin aquifers or put mercury into the air or dump toxins in our rivers or streams.
I remember in the 50's when I was a child and my eyes burned and lungs hurt in the Los Angeles basin. It is much better there now. There was a time when some rivers and canals actually caught fire. ie, erie canal fire.
I am thankful for environmental regulations.
Bob , I grew up on a beautiful creek on the edge of our city in iowa , by 1980 all the fish were dead and it stunk , 15 years after they stopped allowing business's to pollute it , the fish were back , it seems some people have never ventured outside
http://www.waterkeeper.org/
Also bad news for the economy, which says that the EPA is impeding it.
The Obama administration EPA is the most activist and wrong headed ever. At the same time that the president is pushing people to buy electric cars, his EPA is--absent congressional oversight--introducing regulations which will substantially increase the Kw/h cost of electricity. The only rational incentive to buy an electric car is savings on gas money. And it's not just cars. We are using an increasing number of battery based devices. All that electricity isn't magic. It comes from burning carbons. The truth is that we long ago exceeded the cleanliness standards originally set out in the Clear Air and Clean Water acts, but the EPA cannot declare victory, being a massive, self sustaining bureaucracy. Something has got to give.
Yeah, but I've kind of gotten into the habit of breathing and drinking water. All those anti-pollution measures, scrubbers for smokestacks, new technologies and efficient inventions are invented, designed, developed, sold, installed and maintained by people. They generate jobs all by themselves, and many of those jobs cannot be offshored, since they are linked to geographically fixed targets here in the U.S.
Your thinking on the matter is basically the economic fallacy of the broken window. If a kid breaks a baker's window, one might say that it's great because the glassmaker will get work now. Except that the baker won't buy a new oven or hire an apprentice because he had to pay the glassmaker. What about the jobs that corporations will scale back to pay for scrubbers and like devices? Worse, those who are close with their congressmen will simply get waivers on the new regulations so the regulations aren't universally applied. This is to say nothing of a massive, un-elected bureaucratic organization making these decisions.
Fact is, we have already hit the environmental cleanliness levels set out in the original EPA regs. I am not saying we should pillage the environment, but a modicum of sense is in order especially in these trying economic times.
Bill Zeiser,
we have more oil rig permits being given than ever, U.S. production of oil is up, the oil companies have made the biggest profits of any companies in history, Obama is for more nuclear power, natural gas is down because of surplus.
I assume this was in response to my comments below, as it doesn't seem to speak to my above points. The president is pursuing regulatory policies that will increase the cost of electricity. The EPA has started to apply cleanliness regulations to smaller power plants that were once exempt. That has nothing to do with how much oil we are pulling from the ground. It is wonderful that he is in favor of nuclear energy, but we are already decades behind. And our leadership on natural gas is being challenged by unfounded hysteria over fracking. We're in trouble any way you slice it.
Well Bill we are never going to agree. The cost of environmental cleanup is not free. Car companies said they couldn't meet new gas and emission standards every time they were increased, yet they managed.
The environment should not be ignored for increased profits. I obviously believe it is more important than you do.
I have seen what energy and mining companies do when not regulated and the harm outweighed the gain in lower energy prices and jobs and such. Ask Japan about nuclear power and if it was worth it , for some reason they are phasing out along with France and others.
I have seen much positive improvement in the environment and how companies treat it since the EPA was established and I am grateful for it.
Things like the oil spill in the gulf are logically acceptable by the energy companies as it is only a dent in their profits, what's the problem, only one out of thousands, but that is all it takes to ruin a beautiful environment like Louisiana's and Alaska's for many years. Apparently people like you just think that's the cost of doing business, and all the people's lives that were ruined are just part of the equation.
I thought this was already decided in Massachusetts vs EPA? I can understand the implementation being challenged but I don't see how any court could interpret the USSC ruling any other way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency
Thank goodness, at least there are some signs of sanity being shown. I hope this at least has put a damper on the GOP's plans to destroy the ground and the air in which we share. This part of their plan still eludes me. I was under the impression that in order to survive everyone needs clean air and water. If these much needed resources are gone, do the rich really have in play another source in which to obtain these. I surely can't think of any. Even for their most treacherous schemes to evolve, they would need these essential ingredients to carry out their plans, are they out to destroy themselves or just their egos? Either way I believe they are going about this the wrong way. There has to be an easier way to rid the world of these suicidal egos.
Thanks to the superior judgment of this appellate court, our country stands to rid itself of the oppressive stench of the fossil fuel demons that have wrought such damage to our land and our citizens' health. Wars, droughts, wildfires, extreme weather, pollution and related adverse health effects are a direct result of their horrible greed and madness. We want clean, domestic energy and jobs, protection of our federal rights, lands, health, and civil liberties. Hope is shining again and the Obama administration is delivering. Obama/Biden 2012!
What you are suggesting doesn't logically bear out. There is no magic way to efficiently produce energy that does not involve burning fossil fuels. Where do you think our energy comes from--wind farms? Meanwhile, President Obama is pushing an increased reliance on battery based devices--which will require more electricity and presumably the burning of more fossil fuels. His thinking is entirely out of order on the issues.
And the same environmentalists who rail about fossil fuels also tend to be anti-nuclear. You can't have it all, kids. I believe this country is strong enough to survive another Obama administration should it come to that. We have gotten through lots of tough times. I just hope sense prevails before we have to worry about that.
Well Bill we are never going to agree. The cost of environmental cleanup is not free. Car companies said they couldn't meet new gas and emission standards every time they were increased, yet they managed.
The environment should not be ignored for increased profits. I obviously believe it is more important than you do.
I have seen what energy and mining companies do when not regulated and the harm outweighed the gain in lower energy prices and jobs and such. Ask Japan about nuclear power and if it was worth it , for some reason they are phasing out along with France and others.
I have seen much positive improvement in the environment and how companies treat it since the EPA was established and I am grateful for it.
Things like the oil spill in the gulf are logically acceptable by the energy companies as it is only a dent in their profits, what's the problem, only one out of thousands, but that is all it takes to ruin a beautiful environment like Louisiana's and Alaska's for many years. Apparently people like you just think that's the cost of doing business, and all the people's lives that were ruined are just part of the equation.
You're putting words into my mouth. I never said that the environment is not important. What I said was that the EPA--which under the current administration is run by activists instead of those who understand how to mediate between business and the environment--is pursuing environmental policies that have dubious merit in terms of actually solving any environmental problems, but will doubtless cost jobs. Please see the writings of Rich Trzupek, an environmental consultant whose job it is to help bring companies into line with EPA regs for good work on this topic.
Was the oil spill in the Gulf a good thing? Hell no! But the case was vastly overstated as to how much damage it would cause. Turns out it was just another breathless Malthusian argument from progressives. You know the reason that spill was such news? Because it had been decades since we had an offshore drilling accident of anywhere near that size. That is pretty spectacular, given the volume of offshore drilling we do.
The case of Japan supports my argument, not yours. That reactor, which was old and built essentially on a beach, was hit with a tsunami, suffered massive damage and STILL did not go critical. The reason that European countries are leaving behind nuclear energy is hysteria on the part of environmental activists. They will find it costly to do so on both their wallets and the environmental. They use an appreciable percentage of nuclear power, and they will have to replace it by burning fossil fuels and harming the environment.
I'm not saying that we don't need to defend the environment, but there has to be room for facts and logic next to the appeals to pathos coming from activists.
Your saying just what energy company spokesmen would say, one out of thousands so the oil rig safety record is good. The fact that we have so many makes it pretty good odds it will happen again. It will be years before all the damage can be assessed but much oil and chemicals are still in the gulf from this. Good old BP, the guys who also let pipelines deteriorate and leak when they were not taking the preventative measures they were supposed to, and there were decisions to forgo some safety measures and procedures in the gulf explosion.
Oh comeon, we actually saw four reactors go critical and one blow up, and they still aren't sure if the bottoms were breached. Nuclear disasters are extremely damaging to the environment, economy, and health. They cause much land to be uninhabitable forever, all property value is zero. the spent fuel rods actually take seven years in pumped water to cool enough to be moved. A big problem in Japan as not inside containment, as with most reactors, and the pumps were down. Spent fuel must be put somewhere, Nuclear power is not without environmental risks, and the risks are great.
many people sick and dying , some of the workers put there life at risk to work on the reactors and some died from exposure.
I do not think these things are as trivial as you imply. The earth is real and the environment is real and the damage caused is real and we must be very careful to not damage it beyond repair in the name of multi-billion dollar corporation's bottom line.
I support the EPA. That's my case and I'm sticking to it.
As for the corporations who want less regulation, I believe they would destroy the environment for maximum profits if not regulated. The Koch brothers would agree. How much money and lobbyists will it take to get rid of all regulation which is their goal. And now they can buy elections as well as lobby!
It is about balancing things. Do corporate leaders have interests and can they be corrupted? Yes. Just as much as George Soros, or the employees of an un-elected, un-appointed government bureaucracy. The common sense fact that you have no answer for is this; We need energy. At this point in time, that means either burning fossil fuels, which produce harmful emissions and require invasive processes to free them from the earth, or turning to nuclear energy which is much cleaner but which has certain risks which you have helpfully overstated above.
I *DO* sound exactly as a corporate spokesman would, because they have a track record of safety to be proud of, on the whole. The energy you get from your outlet does not come from wind or solar power, nor does it come from magical pixie dust. It requires scientific human endeavor and as with all endeavors of worth, there are both risks and rewards.
In appointing an activist to be the EPA administrator who was an activist, President Obama is allowing the inmates to run the asylum. But let's do a thought exercise. Say that the EPA was sound on all of their environmental science. They are not, but let's say that they are. Say that they had an understanding of how our economy works. They don't but let's give them the benefit of the doubt. What remains is still a government agency full of people who are not elected or appointed yet have legislative powers that the president and congress cannot check. This is dangerous for obvious reasons and runs antithetical to what the founders envisioned for our republican experiment.
On the other hand, it perfectly fits the progressive vision of removing the decision making power from the peons we have elected and putting it in the hand of the "experts." The problem is that most of these people are not scientists, they are people with public administration masters degrees with a focus on science. They are no more expert than any other politically corruptible body.
Our values and beliefs are too different for us ever to agree, but at least we both got to make our cases.
Yes the damage may be overstated, but also understated, and it was great none the less. What would the corporations track record be if there was no EPA?
I believe we are beginning to push the envelope and these last two big disasters are a warning sign. With the climate getting more extreme every year with increasing storms, tsunamis, earthquakes, droughts and fires and many old nuclear reactors in the world I think it's beginning to be a great gamble. Notice that it's a bit warmer than usual this year. I wish we could get some rain here in New Mexico, it's really bad
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/localnews/New-Mexico-drought-spurs-wildfires--hurts-farmers-
I don't know that we will ever sway each other, but I do enjoy the conversation. Thought that you might find this interesting as well. The Japanese just brought the first of their reactors online: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48034288/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/?ocid=twitter#.T_Drg8VrvyU
Good article. I understand the need to bring them online and don't expect otherwise. also points out ongoing problems with fukushima.
Good conversation from opposing points of view, thanks for continuing it.
Your main point about jobs and cost an unreasonable regulations may well be true. I doubt you and I would agree as to what is unreasonable.
The rhetoric from the right wants to severely limit the EPA'S power or get rid of it altogether. I view this as too extreme an attack with big money and lobbyists backing it and therefore I think the EPA needs all the help it can get so I defend it when I can, and I know I digress quite a bit from your point.
Thanks for a lively discussion. Gonna move on now.