EPA Climate Action Upheld by a federal appeals court

This is coming from a few different sources none of which are really linkable so I'll just copy and paste this press release from the Environmental Defense Fund:



Moments ago, a federal appeals court upheld EPA's climate pollution emission standards, rejecting four legal challenges that had been filed by industry groups and several states' attorneys general.

The court ruled in favor of clean air protections in four major cases, denying petitions against the Climate Pollution Endangerment Finding and the Clean Car Standards and dismissing petitions against the Timing and Tailoring Rules.

EDF activists submitted tens of thousands of comments in favor of these critical rules and today's court decision affirms our efforts to defend EPA's common sense solutions to promote cleaner air and a safer climate future.

This ruling also comes one day after the public comment period closed on the proposed new EPA rule that would limit climate pollution from new fossil fuel power plants. An incredible 113,579 EDF activists joined a record-shattering 2 million Americans who submitted comments in favor of this rule that, if implemented, will help end dirty energy as we know it.

More like this

First, the good news: A federal appeals court has struck down a 2006 EPA rule that prohibited state and local governments from strengthening efforts to monitor pollution from power plants, factories, and refineries. Under the Clean Air Act, state and local governments are tasked with issuing…
On Labor Day, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) issued a press release whose title summarizes its contents all too neatly: Bush Declares Eco-Whistleblower Law Void for EPA Employees. Here's some of it: Washington, DC - The Bush administration has declared itself immune from…
By Liz Borkowski When EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced last week that the agency would lower the limit for ground-level ozone pollution, he acknowledged that the current standard of 0.08 parts per million was insufficiently protective of public health. This was an appropriate rationale…
The process of putting a new federal regulation in place to protect individuals from serious hazards at work often takes five or more years. Part 1 of "Worker safety rulemaking" described the steps leading up to OSHA proposing a new rule, to the point where the agency's chief decides whether to…

Science Magazine had a nice piece on the decision (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/climate-science-gets-…) with an excellent sound-bite from the appeals court's decision:

"EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."

As described in the Science news piece, the court came down quite firmly on the side of both the ACG science itself, and on EPA's use of it in formulating its regulations.

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink