Good Timing...

Last September, I posted Environmental law and timing..., in which I discussed a Supreme Court case involving the regulation of greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Plaintiffs - including a number of environmental groups, 18 states, and two of the biggest power generators in the United States (Entergy and Calpine) - argue that the EPA should be regulating greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. (Entergy and Calpine are arguing FOR regulation for both environmental (secondary) and market certainty (primary) reasons. They're in the process of building the next generation of power plants, and are seeking to have certainty in the regulatory environment.) The Bush administration EPA disagrees, and argues that lawmakers did not intend the Clean Air Act to include regulation of greenhouse gasses.

The question of my original post was whether the merits of the case would be more impacted by timing, rather than the actual plain language of the Clean Air Act:

My question about this case is relatively simple - is the future of the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases contingent upon the timing of this lawsuit? What I mean by that is it appears to me that the current configuration of the Supreme Court is not going to be very friendly to the Plaintiffs here. The Court (driven by Justice Scalia) has tended to limit the EPA's regulation of areas (specifically waterways) that the EPA WANTED to regulate - why would they be open to forcing to the EPA to regulate in an area it (at least this current political configuration of the EPA) doesn't want to?

As it turns out, as is all to common, I was wrong.

Warming ruling squeezes Bush from both sides

Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases

The Supreme Court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to explain why it has refused to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from cars, putting the Bush administration under pressure from an unusual coalition of environmental groups and leaders of the auto industry to move quickly on global warming.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court rejected the administration’s argument that it had no legal authority to limit carbon dioxide released from new cars. In a ruling described as a landmark victory for environmental activists, it decided that the EPA does have such authority and that it must give better reasons for not using it than the “laundry list” of “impermissible considerations” it has offered until now.

The court ruled that the plain language of the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant greenhouse gas.

In essence, the court handed the administration power it insisted it did not have and did not want. And the administration came under immediate pressure to use that power from an unlikely source as the nation’s biggest automakers joined the chorus of environmental groups and climate scientists calling for the EPA to get moving on greenhouse gases.

For the automakers [represented by an industry trade group representing General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG, Toyota Motor Corp. and five others], the ruling means a shift in tactics. With the Bush administration having lost the argument that it could not regulate carbon dioxide emissions, automakers now hope that the EPA will enact an industrywide standard before the states enact a patchwork of differing regulations or before the Democratic-controlled Congress can revise the Clean Air Act to include even stronger restrictions.
...
The Bush administration had argued all along that Congress never gave it the power to decide whether carbon dioxide was a pollutant as defined in the federal Clean Air Act, but in an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said it did have such authority.

More important, Stevens sided in unusually strong language with scientists who say that U.S. car emissions do contribute to greenhouse gases, leading to global warming. In doing so, he rebutted the contention of some energy industry officials and Republicans in the administration and Congress that there is no proof of global warming.

Interesting - the timing was much better than I thought...

Prior post: Environmental law and timing...

Responsible options...

Good editorial from the Orlando Sentinel, as published in the Chronicle today:

When former Vice President Al Gore made his dramatic return to Capitol Hill last week to speak out about global warming, some in Congress scorned his call for action. They were exemplified by Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who read a newspaper during some of Gore's testimony.

If members still aren't convinced of the need to act by Gore or by last month's slam-dunk report on global warming from a panel of international climate scientists, here's some other questions for them to ponder:

Would they like cleaner air? Or, if public health and the environment aren't among their priorities, what about national security? Would they like to curb America's oil addiction and reduce the flow of U.S. dollars bankrolling terrorist groups and hostile regimes?

Each of these national imperatives also would be advanced by some of the proposals that Gore made during his testimony. That's a compelling argument for members who don't share the former vice president's alarm about global warming to give his action plan a long look.

Gore, for example, called for a moratorium on coal-fired power plants unless they are designed to capture emissions of carbon dioxide, the main culprit behind global warming. But the best design so far for that purpose also reduces emissions that cause smog and acid rain, taint waterways and contribute to asthma attacks, heart disease and birth defects.

Gore also called for raising fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. This was a no-brainer long before most people had heard anything about global warming.

The United States imports about 60 percent of its oil supply, and cars and light trucks burn nearly half of it.

Raising the standard for both cars and trucks to just 33 mpg over the next decade would save more than 2 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, according to sponsors of a plan in Congress. That savings could reduce U.S. dependence on foreign suppliers such as Saudi Arabia, where some of the petro profits end up promoting terrorism, and Venezuela, whose president has been using oil money to forge an anti-American alliance.

If Gore and the panel of scientists behind last month's report are to be believed, global warming is reason enough to demand action from Congress. But the potential benefits for environmental protection, public health and national security make the case even stronger.

Looking away is not a responsible option.

Only those with a financial interest in polluting industries, and those unwilling to recognize appropriate stewardship - no matter what political party promotes it - are still unwilling to appropriately address the issue.

Related post: Right Wing Radio is Over...

Eat all the seafood you can, while you can...

This is a really disturbing article from MSNBC - Seafood could Collapse by 2050, Experts Warn:
Overfishing, pollution, warming are destroying stocks, study finds.

If you like seafood - like I do - or if you simply like fishing, the outdoors, and the environment in general, it is disquieting to think that the vast majority of wild ocean species could be virtually gone.

If current trends of overfishing and pollution continue, by 2050 the populations of just about all seafood face collapse, defined as 90 percent depletion, a team of ecologists and economists warns in a study published in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.

There are serious consequenses to such an eradication of ocean species, beyond me not being able to eat some of my favorite foods. Including some scary economic and third-world nutrition impacts:

Joshua Reichert, head of the private Pew Charitable Trusts’ environment program, pointed out that worldwide fishing provides $80 billion in revenue and 200 million people depend on it for their livelihoods. For more than 1 billion people, many of whom are poor, fish is their main source of protein, he said.

As the population of the world - especially in developing nations - is exploding, and the thought of the loss of food-supply and jobs in those areas could produce massive instability in those regions.

On the positive side, it looks as if such impacts can be avoided with proper, and efficient, management:

The researchers called for new marine reserves, better management to prevent overfishing by large trawling fleets and tighter controls on pollution.

In the 48 areas worldwide that have been protected to improve marine biodiversity, they found, “diversity of species recovered dramatically, and with it the ecosystem’s productivity and stability.”

This is the sort of issue that should not be ignored by developing nations. We must look for leaders with the political will to tackle such dire - yet preventable - consequenses.

Environmental law and timing...

This MSNBC article profiles an environmental case that the Supreme Court has accepted for the October 2006 term.

The case involves regulation of greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Plaintiffs - including a number of environmental groups, 18 states, and two of the biggest power generators in the United States (Entergy and Calpine) - argue that the EPA should be regulating greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. (Entergy and Calpine are arguing FOR regulation for both environmental (secondary) and market certainty (primary) reasons. They're in the process of building the next generation of power plants, and are seeking to have certainty in the regulatory environment.) The Bush administration EPA disagrees, and argues that lawmakers did not intend the Clean Air Act to include regulation of greenhouse gasses.

The Plaintiffs claim that the case is simply about the plain language of the Clean Air Act, which according to this interview states that:

Congress said two things: "An air pollutant is anything. Quite literally any chemical, physical or biological substance that's emitted into the air is an air pollutant."

Congress said, "Thou shalt regulate any pollution if it is anticipated to endanger health or welfare—if it has an adverse effect, including adverse effects on climate and weather."

I do not have the expertise to know if the plain language of the Clean Air Act is this clear, or this broad. My question about this case is relatively simple - is the future of the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases contingent upon the timing of this lawsuit? What I mean by that is it appears to me that the current configuration of the Supreme Court is not going to be very friendly to the Plaintiffs here. The Court (driven by Justice Scalia) has tended to limit the EPA's regulation of areas (specifically waterways) that the EPA WANTED to regulate - why would they be open to forcing to the EPA to regulate in an area it (at least this current political configuration of the EPA) doesn't want to? I can't see this claim being successful with this Supreme Court, no matter how plain the language may appear.

But, this interview addresses that possibility at the end:

What if you lose?
Then it just increases pressure on Congress, I think. Then we've done our job and we've tried to do whatever we can through the courts. Presumably we pay our representatives and senators to address the tough questions. They don't get any tougher than this.

Okay, I changed my mind - Water for everyone!!!

Can you believe this - one day and the EPA changes its policy:

EPA Does About-Face, Won't Allow Partial Treatment at Sewage Plants in Storms

The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday it will not allow sewage treatment plants to skip a process for killing some disease-causing micro-organisms after heavy rains or snow melts.

If the EPA had adopted the policy, U.S. sewage plants might have avoided an estimated $90 billion or more in facility upgrades to allow for oxidation of pollutants in wastes after heavy rains.

The agency had proposed letting [untreated sewage dumping] become the official policy for handling the huge volume of waste water that storms bring, but changed its mind after reviewing 98,000 public comments and the testimony at some congressional hearings.

Info here from the League of Conservation Voters.

It's good to know the the public can still make a difference.

Don't Drink the Water...

Just found this post at Uncommon Sense at TomPaine.com. It is amazing what kind of political choices are made while most of us are unaware.

The EPA has proposed legislation to allow sewage companies to dump sewage which has not completed treatment into our water supplies.

No, unfortunately I'm not kidding. The EPA - purportedly the government's agency to protect our environment - is proposing this. That fact just boggles my mind. The issue is that in times of heavy storms and flooding, much of America's water systems - pipes/drains/etc. - can't handle the excess water. This cause of this problem is the age and decline of this water infrastructure. But instead of a long-term plan to overhaul and invest in this vital infrastructure, the EPA (and the Bush administration) is proposing a "quick-fix" - a short term solution that is no solution at all. They propose to allow sewage companies to release sewage which has not been fully treated to remove biological contaminants into our waters in order to free up space needed to funnel the excess water during storms and flooding.

We, as the public that will be most impacted by this legislation, should stand in opposition.

Click here to read about the problem that is our aging water infrastructure system.
Click here to read what the League of Conservation Voters says about this sewage legislation.
Click here to take action and send an e-mail to your Congressperson urging them to oppose the EPA legislation and vote for the Save Our Waters from Sewage Act, proposed by a large group in Congress.
Click here to read the Save Our Waters from Sewage Act and see who all introduced the bill.
Click here to send an e-mail to others to encourage them to take action to keep our waters clean.