The Supreme Court will be offering up its thoughts on emissions, as the highest court in the land will hear a challenge to greenhouse gas regulations that were instituted by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2007. The New York Times refers to the case being heard by SCOTUS as "a sequel" to an earlier case, which mandated that the EPA would regulate greenhouse gases emitted by new cars and trucks, if it were proven those emissions posed a danger to public health.

In 2009, the EPA concluded that greenhouse gases were, in fact, bad, and that unchecked increases were a threat to the health of current and future generations. So it then levied regulations on emissions from both vehicles and fixed sources, like powerplants and factories. According to the NYT, this has not sat well with certain groups, which are claiming that the EPA hasn't provided enough evidence to support its claims against stationary sources.

The Supreme Court accepted six petitions, although the only issue it's going to consider is whether the EPA "permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases." What that means in simple English is that SCOTUS isn't ruling on the legality of the EPA regulating tailpipe emissions, but that it's considering whether or not the agency had the right to extend those regulations to so-called fixed sources, like power plants.

For more legalese, the NYT spoke to Richard J. Lazarus, an environmental law professor at Harvard, who said, "The court declined to review EPA's determination that greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare and therefore has left intact the government's current regulation of motor vehicle emissions to address climate change." Translated, EPA vehicle emissions regulations are as legal as can be, and no matter the results of this case, that isn't going to change.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 68 Comments
      mylexicon
      • 1 Year Ago
      These guys are just paving the way for a carbon tax
      AngeloD
      • 1 Year Ago
      The EPA regulations ought to be challenged on establishment clause grounds since they are really just imposing a faith-based belief in anthropogenic global warming on the rest of us. The green-religion fundamenatlists can't show a shred of hard scientific evidence of any global warming in the past 20 years, let alone any man-made component to global temps. Here's hoping SCOTUS has the presence of mind to undo the damage of the previous decision.
        Rob J
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        Why don't you have a search through the thousands of scientific publications on climate change found on Google Scholar and then get back to posting on message boards about things you don't understand.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rob J
          I have, and all of their great predictions have been WRONG. Do you understand what the word wrong means? IT MEANS NOT REMOTELY ACCURATE. So in summary, OP is right.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rob J
          Can you not read? I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT STATIC BEHAVIOR, but evade the question if you want. Yes, their models are generally on the 25-50-100 year basis, but you can extrapolate the data for current times(in which many of their graphs do) and their range of predictions from 95 and 00 are generally wrong. So nice diversion.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rob J
          Oh, BTW, yeah, no predictions were made. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/028.htm#34 TS1 5.3 etc.
          Rob J
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rob J
          Because those models do not make static predictions, and they certainly do not make predictions in the ~10-20 year range. They are designed to provide a broad range of possibilities in the range of 50 to 100 years. You would know that if you read any of the IPCC reports.
          AngeloD
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rob J
          @Rob How about you do the same and get back to us when you find any evidence of warming over the past 20 years. Go peddle your superstitious warmist nonsense elsewhere.
      Jared
      • 1 Year Ago
      These claims of saving the planet are nothing but a scam. Stop the tightening of emission standards!
        bonehead
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Jared
        The ignorance of the comments on here are astounding. Its as if people think science is a scam just because some political person they didnt like once was pro science.
          Mark Schaffer
          • 1 Year Ago
          @bonehead
          edward.stallings go to website is a propaganda junk science site: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Depot "ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, Climate Depot claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy."[1]"
          edward.stallings
          • 1 Year Ago
          @bonehead
          Read what scientists have to say about the IPCC report - climatedepot.com As a scientist (chemistry degree), I too am astounded by the ignorance of people like yourself that buy into the IPCC report and swallow the crap they are being fed by politicians and the media. Read a sampling of the climategate emails and then tell us that what has been happening is not pure politics....
      Nick
      • 1 Year Ago
      Jesus. Why is this even up for debate. What a joke. The regulations should be about 100 times stricter.
        Cool Disco Dan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Nick
        Why exactly? I'd love to here your deeply rooted scientific evidence for such a thing.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Nick
        [blocked]
      mitytitywhitey
      • 1 Year Ago
      ironic are those in this country that vote to 'save the environment' yet want to grant amnesty so that the new crop will vote for a party claiming to protect and environment now endangered by having twice as many mouths to feed. vote it down, still ironic.
        mitytitywhitey
        • 1 Year Ago
        @mitytitywhitey
        Everybody is so worries about the polar bear, yet ignore that the tiger and the elephant are endangered because too many darned people live on those continents. Low population/sqkm protects natural resources. Period. I'm a true environmentalist who us repulsed by urban expansion, which permanently eradicates an ecosystem for hundreds of sq kms.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mitytitywhitey
          Stand by your rhetoric, and lower the population starting with yourself.
      Mami
      • 1 Year Ago
      So the United Nations just issued a report stating that Global Warming is man made with 99% certainty, and yet deniers shamelessly disregard the truth? What a surprise.
        AngeloD
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Mami
        @Mami The IPCC report said just the opposite. You warmist cult members need to go peddle your religious dogma elsewhere.
      edward.stallings
      • 1 Year Ago
      Idiotic - the idea that CO2 is a pollutant. It is a required nutrient. Everything we eat is made from it via plants in the food chain. To get optimized plant growth CO2 levels must be increased. We exhale it. What's next, an exercise tax for breathing hard? Have any of these idiots ever bothered to calculate the caloric input of human activity into the atmosphere? It is way more significant than CO2, which might actually lower the temperature due to increased cloud cover and increased plant growth. This is all about the tax.
        Marcopolo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @edward.stallings
        @ edward.stallings Sugar and alcohol are also important nutrients, but too much of either can lead to stupidity, muddled thinking,... ah, ..yes, I think I've discovered your problem .......
        EVnerdGene
        • 1 Year Ago
        @edward.stallings
        Marco, Marco, Marco, I have a correction to Edward's statement: "This is all about the tax" [and control, and fear-mongering]. CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere (point zero three nine) Plants need it to live and thrive. You want to tax and control something that has about 50 to 100 times the affect that CO2 has on our atmosphere ? Tax water vapor. Yes, that dastardly water vapor. Demand that all lawn watering cease immediately or pay a fine for every day you water. dastardly CH4 - and let's put a cork in cow butts. Methane gas ya-know. In fact Aussies seem to be world champs at ripping them off. "Great Crepitation Contest" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FyD95Hv7CU horseshit - ban horses and horse-racing also. can you imagine all the CO2 released from a soccer or football game ? ban it jogging - ban it bicycling for pleasure or exercise - ban it When are we going to get serious ? ban big-mouth journalism-major gore flying around in private jets preaching doom and gloom
      bonehead
      • 1 Year Ago
      Yeah we dont need no regulations!! Just look at how much freedom Beijing has with their apple pies, baseball, and lax emission regulations. We could have that paradise too. Thanks Obama http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/01/chinas-toxic-sky/100449/
      Marcopolo
      • 1 Year Ago
      Clearly the US government is authorized by the US constitution to impose laws such as the Clean Air Act. Opposition as to whether the US government is right or wrong to pursue those policies, is not a matter for a constitutional court, but a political issue for the American people and their elected Representatives. Asking the US Supreme Court to arbitrate is a misuse of the Court's constitutional role. Brandon, and other posters to this thread, are entitled to express their opinions on the validity of Green House Gas effects on the planets atmosphere and environment, without being subjected to abuse. I don't agree with Brandon, but he raises some valid issues and deserves some respect for advancing an unpopular view in a mostly logical and rational manner. I suspect many of those who are so vehement in deriding his opinions, have no idea about the actual science of climate change, and are just chanting dogma. But, none of that is the business of the Justices of the US Supreme Court , who also have no business deciding the validity behind the science of climate change. That's a job for the American people through elected legislators. There comes a time in every organized society, when individuals, corporations, organizations of all sorts, must just accept lawful (constitutional) regulations, even if they disagree, and comply. That doesn't restrict the right to agitate politically to change public opinion, or regulations, but by political means, not the US Supreme Court.
        Avinash Machado
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marcopolo
        Well said.
        mylexicon
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marcopolo
        The EPA is an independent agency. You won't find that anywhere in the Constitution. It's existence and legislative power are matters of Constitutional law. If everything were up to the voters, we wouldn't have bothered with a Constitution.
          EVnerdGene
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mylexicon
          mylexicon - good point ! Our Constitution says that only Congress (the legislative branch) can make laws. The Judicial branch's responsibility is to see if the laws follow what is allowed by our Constitution. [ sometimes they do stray - that's call 'legislating from the bench' - and happens all too often !!! } The Executive branch enforces laws. When they do not enforce the laws, they are breaking their oath of office and should either quit, or be thrown out of office. - An example of that is enforcing our immigration laws and border security. The EPA makes laws, enforces laws, and makes penalties for not following their laws. 17,000 employees that work for us ?
      RC
      • 1 Year Ago
      Yet another reason to go off the grid.
      Ryan
      • 1 Year Ago
      I'm waiting until Obama or Hilliary gets to replace one of the conservative justices. I can't wait to see how much the Right will fume over that.
        1454
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Ryan
        I'm waiting til the whole thing blows up in yours, and everyone else who thinks government is great(including the right and their war tactics), blows up in your face. I bet Greece was looking forward to more regulations too, now they don't have jobs. Same goes with taxes, or any other government force for evil. So when you get brought to your knees don't come crying to those of us that said this is unsustainable.
        Ryan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Ryan
        *Hillary... And that would be better if 61 seats in the senate were D when it happens.
      RGT881
      • 1 Year Ago
      http://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspot.com/2013/10/marc-faber-corrupt-system-that-rewards.html Whether it's finance, or environment, I believe that these academics are indeed only concerned about releasing data which is empirically manipulated to prove their opinions, and not the truth. But hey it's really nice for Wall Street which is making a hefty profit on manipulation of Renewable Identification Credits. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-16/jpmorgan-accused-rins-manipulation Quote from Johann Peter Eckermann’s conversation with Goethe, Feb. 1, 1827. Topic is of the professors who, after they had found a better theory, still ignored it. From Eckermann and Goethe: “‘This is not to be wondered at,’ said Goethe; ‘such people continue in error because they are indebted to it for their existence. They would have to learn everything over again, and that would be very inconvenient.’ “‘But,’ said I, ‘how can their experiments prove the truth when the basis for their evaluation is false?’ “‘They do not prove the truth,’ said Goethe, ‘nor is such the intention; the only point with these professors is to prove their own opinion. On this account, they conceal all experiments that would reveal the truth and show their doctrine untenable. Then the scholars — what do they care for truth? They, like the rest, are perfectly satisfied if they can prate away empirically; that is the whole matter.’”
        Nick Kordich
        • 1 Year Ago
        @RGT881
        For those who enjoy irony: Goethe was wrong. The quote above was in regard to scholars' refusal to accept Goethe's own Theory of Color as "a better theory" than what Newton put forth in Opticks a century earlier. Today, Opticks is still considered among the most important scientific documents in history, while Goethe is primarily remembered as a playwright. That's not because a cabal of scholars suppressed the truth - you can get Theory of Color through Google Books, just as it was circulated in the 19th century - it was because what Goethe proposed with regard to the physics of light didn't hold up. Darkness is the absence of light, not a thing unto itself. White light is composed of different frequencies of light, not colorless until tinted by matter. Newton established these things, and Goethe tried to overthrow them, returning to the Aristotelian model of light. These theories were tested, Goethe's was found wanting, and those aspects of his work were largely ignored. If the rest of Theory of Color was not as well received because of his lack of understanding/acceptance of how light worked in the accepted Newtonian model, does more of the blame belong to the scholars of his day or Goethe himself? I think the takeaway here isn't that scientists have suppressed scientific advancement for at least 185 years; I think the moral is that even a brilliant mind can fall so in love with an idea that criticism of it is taken personally and ad hominem attacks fly in response. Goethe viewed Theory of Color as his most important creation, and it did have ideas that influenced later philosophers, biologists and psychologists, but when it comes to science, he was ignored by physicists because he was demonstrably wrong.
        Stephen
        • 1 Year Ago
        @RGT881
        I agree with that! Science has been preverted and corrupted by greed. You only get funding for your research is it is sexy, sensational, or promotes an agenda. Oh for the day when it is OK that a theory is disproved by the imperical evidence.
    • Load More Comments