Sunday, October 10, 2010

EPA sued by over 90 entities for 'Greenhouse' Gas Regulations

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration's move to curb 'greenhouse gases' using the Environmental Protection Agency has drawn legal challenges from more than 90 companies and trade associations. This could be very interesting since any of these legal challenges conceivably might result in subpoenas issued for infamous warmists such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, forcing them to provide documents and prove their flimsy AGW theory under cross-examination in a court of law. Here's what happened when James Hansen was 'boxed in' on the witness stand once before,  dumbfounded when cross-examined and asked to name just one other scientist who agreed with his assertion that sea levels would rise more than 1 meter this century, stating "I could not, instantly."

Dr. Roy Spencer appears well prepared as an expert witness for the plantiffs.


Carbon Curbs by EPA Land in Court Again

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration's move to curb greenhouse gases using the Environmental Protection Agency has drawn legal challenges from more than 90 companies and trade associations, giving the courts another opening to shape U.S. climate policy in the absence of legislative action.

The most recent lawsuit attacking the EPA's climate policy was filed Thursday by the California-based Pacific Legal Foundation. The conservative group is challenging EPA's so-called endangerment finding, which concluded that greenhouse gases posed a risk to public health. The finding is the basis of proposed EPA regulations to cut carbon dioxide emissions using the Clean Air Act.

"EPA violated its statutory duty—and the public trust—by recklessly making a sweeping judgment about [carbon dioxide] emissions without independent review by scientists of the highest caliber, as required by law," said the foundation's attorney, Ted Hadzi-Antich, in a statement.

EPA has denied numerous requests to reconsider its endangerment finding. The agency says its findings are rooted in science and claims "these types of arguments are based on a manufactured controversy and provide no evidence to undermine our determination," an EPA spokesman said.

The courts have already played a central role in the nation's climate change debate. The U.S. Supreme Court got the ball rolling when it decided in 2007 that EPA could regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

"Someone not happy with the spilled milk would probably make a run at the Supreme Court," said Kevin Holewinski, a partner with the law firm Jones Day. "These issues are too profound to be heard by one tribunal."

In addition to its endangerment finding, EPA adopted a rule in April that set greenhouse gas standards for passenger cars and light trucks. In May, EPA passed a "tailoring rule" that outlines which types of facilities have to obtain greenhouse-gas permits.

The climate bill passed by the House of Representatives last year would have substituted a more flexible cap and trade system for the EPA's clean air rules. That bill is unlikely to move forward in the Senate.

"The extensive litigation attacking EPA's clean air initiatives are as much—if not more—about the broken politics of Washington D.C.," said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund.

While litigation over the EPA's climate rules churns through the lower courts, some members of Congress are calling for legislation to block the agency from using the Clean Air act to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.), for example, has introduced a bill to delay EPA's work on the issue for two years and has already recruited dozens of supporters in the Senate. Some Republican lawmakers have also supported action to stop the EPA climate rules.

Also in the Wall Street Journal 10/10/10: Shootout in the EPA Corral 

1 comment:

  1. I suggest that every bit of evidence for AGW is subpoenea'd. Every model is scrutinsed. The underlying data is scrutinised. The AGW proponents are cross examined.

    I'm sorry to say, as a scientist, that I thought that following the release of the CRU e-mails, the AGW issue would never be settled in the scientific arena, but in the legal arena.