The Supreme Court of the United States has, in a 5-4 decision (pdf), just ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the clean air act was, "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
The decision does not require the EPA to begin regulating greenhouse gasses, but it does send the case back for further considerations, and it does tell the EPA that none of the justifications that it attempted to use to avoid regulating CO2 is a legitimate basis for refusal. The ruling clearly has massive implications in any number of areas, and I'm sure that more Sciencebloggers will be weighing in as the day goes on.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
A few hours ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA that EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from auto emissions. (For background on the case, see this post.)
David Stout of the New York Times summarizes:
In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found that the Clean Air Act…
Court Rebukes Administration in Global Warming Case says the NYT (thanks to J), and its April the 2nd not first so I guess we can trust them.
In a vain attempt to blog this before the usual suspects do, I haven't bothered to more than skim the report of the decision. But it looks interesting... "In…
by Liz BorkowskiÂ
Bush appointees and polluting industries may oppose statesâ attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but courts have been ruling in statesâ favor. In April, the Supreme Court found that EPA, contrary to its insistence, does in fact have the authority to regulate carbon…
You probably never heard of the EPA Appeals Board, but they have just handed down a ruling that will affect scores of power plants using coal. Affect them how? Not clear at the moment:
The uncertainty resulted when an Environmental Protection Agency appeals panel on Thursday rejected a federal…