EPA Faces First Lawsuit Over Its Killing of Major Climate Rule (nytimes.com) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The first shot has been fired in the legal war over the Environmental Protection Agency's rollback of its "endangerment finding," which had been the foundation for federal climate regulations. Environmental and health groups filed a lawsuit on Wednesday morning in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that the E.P.A.'s move to eliminate limits on greenhouse gases from vehicles, and potentially other sources, was illegal. The suit was triggered by last week's decision by the E.P.A. to kill one of its key scientific conclusions, the endangerment finding, which says that greenhouse gases harm public health. The finding had formed the basis for climate regulations in the United States.
The lawsuit claims that the agency is rehashing arguments that the Supreme Court already considered, and rejected, in a landmark 2007 case, Massachusetts v. E.P.A. The issue is likely to end up back before the Supreme Court, which is now far more conservative. In the 2007 case, the justices ruled that the E.P.A. was required to issue a scientific determination as to whether greenhouse gases were a threat to public health under the 1970 Clean Air Act and to regulate them if they were. As a result, two years later, in 2009, the E.P.A. issued the endangerment finding, allowing the government to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which cause climate change. "With this action, E.P.A. flips its mission on its head," said Hana Vizcarra, a senior lawyer at the nonprofit Earthjustice, which is representing six groups in the lawsuit. "It abandons its core mandate to protect human health and the environment to boost polluting industries and attempts to rewrite the law in order to do so."
[...] Also on Wednesday, two other nonprofit law firms filed their own lawsuit against the E.P.A. over the endangerment finding, on behalf of 18 youth plaintiffs. That suit, by Our Children's Trust and Public Justice, argues that the E.P.A.'s move was unconstitutional. Separate legal challenges to E.P.A. rules are generally consolidated into one case at the D.C. Circuit Court, which is where disputes involving the Clean Air Act are required to be heard. But the sheer number of groups involved could make the legal battle lengthy and complicated to manage. A three-judge panel at the Circuit Court is expected to pore over several rounds of legal briefs before oral arguments begin. Those may not take place until next year.
The lawsuit claims that the agency is rehashing arguments that the Supreme Court already considered, and rejected, in a landmark 2007 case, Massachusetts v. E.P.A. The issue is likely to end up back before the Supreme Court, which is now far more conservative. In the 2007 case, the justices ruled that the E.P.A. was required to issue a scientific determination as to whether greenhouse gases were a threat to public health under the 1970 Clean Air Act and to regulate them if they were. As a result, two years later, in 2009, the E.P.A. issued the endangerment finding, allowing the government to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which cause climate change. "With this action, E.P.A. flips its mission on its head," said Hana Vizcarra, a senior lawyer at the nonprofit Earthjustice, which is representing six groups in the lawsuit. "It abandons its core mandate to protect human health and the environment to boost polluting industries and attempts to rewrite the law in order to do so."
[...] Also on Wednesday, two other nonprofit law firms filed their own lawsuit against the E.P.A. over the endangerment finding, on behalf of 18 youth plaintiffs. That suit, by Our Children's Trust and Public Justice, argues that the E.P.A.'s move was unconstitutional. Separate legal challenges to E.P.A. rules are generally consolidated into one case at the D.C. Circuit Court, which is where disputes involving the Clean Air Act are required to be heard. But the sheer number of groups involved could make the legal battle lengthy and complicated to manage. A three-judge panel at the Circuit Court is expected to pore over several rounds of legal briefs before oral arguments begin. Those may not take place until next year.
Re: corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
ethical people have a responsibility to speak up when we see injustice, crime and classism
Re: (Score:3)
ethical people have a responsibility to speak up when we see injustice, crime and classism
That explains most of the silence in the GOP wings of Congress. /cynical /s
Re: (Score:2)
from all sides
partisan blindness is a leading contributor to political corruption
left versus right is just divide and conquer when both parties are owned and controlled by the upper class
Ah yes, the EPA (Score:5, Insightful)
Which was created by that woke leftist Richard Nixon. Congress and the president gave the EPA enforcement power because the EPA employs experts and scientists. What republicans want is congress to vote on every measure that the EPA used to handle. You know those well informed folks like the "internet is a series of tubes" fellow or the 39 year old grandma who was kicked out of a theater for vaping.
They want similar plans for every agency including the FCC. So if a radio transmitter is operating out of band and spewing harmonics, congress has to vote on the measure of fining the owner who refuses to repair it.
What a fucking clown show.
Re:Ah yes, the EPA (Score:5, Insightful)
We live in an age of wonderfully empowered idiots. Yay computers.
Re: (Score:2)
And we can vote for them. Yay Democracy!
Sometimes I think Plato might have had a point.... Only thing is we'd just end up with some steaming fascist goon instead of a philosopher king. Kinda like democracy actually...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't the climate sceptic demographic skews mostly older, doesn't it? The ones who benefited most from the cheap energy it enabled, and who are the least likely to be affected by it... Except that it turns out pollution is a major cause of Alzheimer's. Probably too late now.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say maybe, but those same people still own the messaging channels. It's hard to get a read on whether or not it'll turn over generationally. I'd say the youth are drinking the koolaid these days.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, found the MAGA shill.
Most of NOAAs land-based weather data comes from sensors at airports and military bases. Not too many of either would be inside a heat island.
Was this another talking point on a Fox News episode trying to debunk "Global Warming"? I can't believe that most MAGA idiots would rather regurgitate false stories they heard on TV rather than doing a 10 second Google search to verify the information. Heat islands = real. Global Warming = real. Correlation between the two = none.
Re: (Score:3)
> Why are we still using weather stations that have been engulfed by urban heat islands to track climate change?
We aren't.
https://www.researchgate.net/f... [researchgate.net]
Re: (Score:2)
nixon was used to create the epa to do an end run around the courts just like he was used to change our currencies into a fiat sellout
welcome to corporatocracy, bow down to our oligarch masters
Re:Ah yes, the EPA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
While carbon may be a natural element, it has become a pollutant because its introduction to the environment on the scale it is currently being emitted has harmful effects
Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the EPA to protect public health from harmful air pollution. While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it not directly harmful to humans as emission. More so, miscategorizing CO2 as pollutant means that the goal is zero CO2 emissions, which is simply not feasible. Regulating it under CAA was clearly a regulatory overreach. While you might not like what Trump Administration did here, it is well within the scope of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go on, I'll wait. About six and a half minutes with your head inside the bag should prove my point, but I'd encourage you to do an overnight test, just so we know for sure that CO2 is entirely safe and could never ever in any way be harmful to humans.
No? Okay, so now that we're done being sil
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
By that definition water could be a pollutant. Oxygen could be a pollutant. Humans certainly are a pollutant.
Humans aren't a substance, they're entities, so no. They're another kind of problem.
The 'harmful effects' are speculated, not actual.
We're way past the speculation phase. We're now in the oh fuck phase.
7x-10x more people die from cold weather than heat. Net warming of the planet will SAVE lives.
Holy fuck you're stupid
Re: (Score:2)
Semantic nonsense.
By that definition water could be a pollutant.
Yes. What happens when your body has too much water and it throws off the electrolyte imbalance? It's potentially fatal https://abcnews.com/GMA/Wellne... [abcnews.com]
Re: (Score:1)
By that logic, the EPA should be confiscating lakes, and imposing limits on how much everyone has to drink (but cannot exceed) every day.
Hell, in your worldview maybe making people drink water but not too much DOES fall in the responsibility of govt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Which was created by that woke leftist Richard Nixon. Congress and the president gave the EPA enforcement power because the EPA employs experts and scientists. What republicans want is congress to vote on every measure that the EPA used to handle. You know those well informed folks like the "internet is a series of tubes" fellow or the 39 year old grandma who was kicked out of a theater for vaping.
They want similar plans for every agency including the FCC. So if a radio transmitter is operating out of band and spewing harmonics, congress has to vote on the measure of fining the owner who refuses to repair it.
What a fucking clown show.
When you bitch about a problem damn near four decades old, you can drop the delusional Us vs. Them political argument both sides love to abuse.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the politik Us and Them are both complicit. And I grow tired of a bought-and-paid-for liberal media attacking every Republican move while blindly defending every Democrat move. That delusional bullshit, is exactly how we got here.
Re:Ah yes, the EPA (Score:5, Insightful)
40 year old problems are not always caused by both sides. Often they are caused by the "tobacco plan.":
1) Deny/Lie
2) Delay / Claim facts are not in
3) Shift responsibility - Yes, there is a problem, but not us,
4) "Choice" let the consumers decide.
5) Insist on half measures - regulate/tax rather than outlaw.
6) Complain about too much of what you demanded we do instead of real solutions (Too much regulations, too much tax)
Yes, a very very few democrats went along with the anti-climate change propaganda machine. There is a huge difference between a party that is 99% against something and one that is 5% against it.
The Republicans were always the main force behind the problem and are the people causing the problem NOW.
Refusing to blame them when they are actively dismantling the few protections we put in place is foolish.
YOU are as much the problem as any Democrat is.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a pure disadvantage though. That representative democracies are reactive rather than proactive does have its upsides. It's easier to identify actual problems and their correct solutions than it is with potential problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress started delegating regulatory authority to the Excecutive because they weren't doing a very good job of it. But they weren't doing a good job of it because they didn't want to, not b
Re: (Score:1)
At one time countries were members of global organizations to tackle global issues.
The US is one of the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases end should show the way but that's cancelled by an orange baboon who is in the pocket of the oil industry.
EPA? (Score:2)
The agency wants renaming.
California can now regulate its own CO2 emissions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because California doesn't appreciate Texas ruining their planet? Wait, aren't you the same guy who says we can't fix this because something something China? Pick a lane.