The EPA, as this blog has documented, has been on the losing end of a number of recent federal court decisions about the extent of the agency’s powers. Now comes yet another judicial decision challenging the EPA.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has rejected EPA’s aggressive approach to implementing what is known as the “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule”, which requires States to cut pollution emissions where there are other States downwind which are being subjected to the wafting pollution. The Rule, as pursued by EPA, among other things allowed EPA to impose federally-mandated pollution-reduction plans on upwind States without giving the States the opportunity to reduce pollution on their own.
Consistent with a prior appellate court ruling, the Court in this case said that the Clean Air Act requires thatStates devise their own implementation plans to curb air pollution and that the federal government has the authority only to judge the success of the State plans—not to step in and write a federal implementation plan.
The case is EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302. You can find the opinion at http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/19346B280C78405C85257A61004DC0E5/$file/11-1302-1390314.pdf.
Adapted from my column for the Valley News Group.
That's an interesting idea, but I don't think that poeple produce the BTU's necessary to make any meaningful difference in the weather, even though there are a LOT of us. The science on global warming is questionable and inconclusive at best, though there seems to be good logical sense in drawing the conclusion that putting all these pollutants in the atmosphere is not a good thing. If you have ever been to LA, you can see the evidence of that very clearly in the thick layer of smog covering the city. Maybe we're nto going to have a melting ice sheet flooding the entire world, but the pollution itself is problematic.
Posted by: Preeti | January 19, 2013 at 02:51 AM
Greenwich has been home to corporations that sold hard liquor and tobacco to millions. Should their employees
Posted by: Bottega Veneta | December 14, 2012 at 05:10 PM
Going Vegan MIGHT. But trying to pedsuare everyone that they have to be vegan to be an environmentalist may have the opposite effect.How so? If people are unwilling to give up just too many things they will decide to ignore the whole objective.We still have to devise economic drivers to ensure that there will be water available to irrigate our dry lands after we annihilate the other animal species. If we just leave it dry, there will not be vegetation to consume the CO2.Well, perhaps the land will be covered with deer and rabbit, and wolves, but there will be no economic incentive to irrigate the land. And we do need that irrigation to continue if we are to stop global warming.So, we need a vision of how Vegan and increased irrigation will fit together if we do not need so many hectares to feed people.
Posted by: Abdulrehman | October 27, 2012 at 01:21 AM
you folks are all on drugs, entirely brnhwaasied. Climategate? all the emails of the false warming data? it's all a scam, al gore lives on 10,000 sq, ft ranch that burns more energy than you would your entire life. the earth goes thru cycles of warming and cooling. how would explain the past melting of glaciers during the ice age? this is all to redistribute wealth from our country to supposedly affected countries. global warming is a fad, a farce. I know I know, the earth flat too, heard it before.
Posted by: Dha | October 27, 2012 at 12:47 AM
EPA is the big one.Others would include Fish Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Corps of Engineers, Marine Fisheries, Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service.Plus state and local evanronmentil agencies make comments too.
Posted by: Mehmet | September 26, 2012 at 01:41 PM
Thanks for such a nice information to see like this.........
Posted by: Laurel | September 17, 2012 at 03:42 AM