“Turns out the Obama Environmental Protection Agency didn’t make up all that stuff about carbon dioxide being bad for you.”
~Kate Sheppard, Mother Jones

A federal appeals court found that the EPA has the right to regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.  The EPA stood up to a lot of political and financial pressure with a host of various industry players (60 lawsuits total) who tried very, very hard to prevent this decision from becoming law.  The head of the EPA is chosen by the President and confirmed by Congress.  How they choose to run the agency will be an extension of the priorities and policies of the President’s administration.  Make no mistake about it … if Mitt Romney is President – he is going to try to repeal this.  Because after all … so called “conservatives” don’t believe climate change exists.  It’s all made up … just like the tooth fairy, santa claus and all that jazz.

And it’s a big deal because this ruling means that regulations that the Obama administration has put in place like requiring an average of 54.5 miles per gallon for personal vehicles by 2025 … those regulations are upheld as legal.  That’s going to have tremendous impact on America’s ability to wean itself off of it’s oil dependency thus helping the economy but also making it less vulnerable to international conflicts and less likely to annex Iran as our 51st state.  It also means that America will slowly reduce it’s carbon footprint.  The EPA’s new regulations are going to shutter several coal plants which pollute a lot and likely lead to the building of several newer gas energy plants which pollute at half the rate for the same amount of energy.

And if you don’t believe in climate change – you are the modern version of the Flat Earth Society.  More on that HERE.

The Hill reports HERE:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA’s “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health and welfare — a finding that provides the underpinning for regulation of emissions from tailpipes, smokestacks and other sources.

The court left intact EPA’s rules on carbon emissions from automobiles, and the “tailoring rule” that shields smaller stationary sources from greenhouse gas permitting that the EPA is using to target emissions from big sources like power plants.

Knocking down the tailoring rule might have created a chaotic, uncertain path ahead for emissions regulations by opening up massive numbers of businesses and other facilities to regulation.

The decision is a defeat for a suite of industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, the National Association of Manufacturers and others that challenged various aspects of EPA’s climate rules. States including Texas and Virginia also filed legal challenges against the rules.

The Washington Post says why it’s important HERE:

So what does this all mean? For one, the EPA will finish up drafting standards requiring cars and light trucks to get a fleet-wide average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. And the agency can move forward with its rules limiting carbon pollution from new power plants. Next up: The agency has to decide whether to place carbon limits on existing power plants, as well as whether to regulate other major sources of pollution such as oil refineries or cement plants.

The NY Times points out the summary by the Federal Appeals Court ruling HERE:

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)—which clarified that greenhouse gases are an “air pollutant” subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA)—the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated a series of greenhouse gas-related rules.

First, EPA issued an Endangerment Finding, in which it determined that greenhouse gases may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” See 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Next, it issued the Tailpipe Rule, which set emission standards for cars and light trucks. Finally, EPA determined that the CAA requires major stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits. But because immediate regulation of all such sources would result in overwhelming permitting burdens on permitting authorities and sources, EPA issued the Timing and Tailoring Rules, in which it determined that only the largest stationary sources would initially be subject to permitting requirements.

Petitioners, various states and industry groups, challenge all these rules, arguing that they are based on improper constructions of the CAA and are otherwise arbitrary and capricious. But for the reasons set forth below, we conclude: 1) the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule are neither arbitrary nor capricious; 2) EPA’s interpretation of the governing CAA provisions is unambiguously correct; and 3) no petitioner has standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules. We thus dismiss for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and deny the remainder of the petitions.

Comments

comments