1970 Clean Air Act was intended to cover carbon dioxide
A study from Harvard and Duke University argues the 1970 Clean Air Act was meant to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, challenging the Supreme Court's ruling on the EPA's authority over greenhouse gases.
Read original article
A recent study indicates that the 1970 Clean Air Act was intended to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, bolstering the legal argument for controlling greenhouse gases. This research, conducted by Harvard and Duke University, counters the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked authority to regulate such emissions. Historical records reveal that lawmakers, including Senator Edmund Muskie, recognized the potential for fossil fuel combustion to contribute to climate change and viewed carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Although they did not see it as an immediate threat, they acknowledged the necessity for future regulation. The study highlights that Congress had a deeper understanding of anthropogenic climate change than previously acknowledged, as evidenced by public discussions and warnings from presidential reports during the era. The findings will be published in the Ecology Law Quarterly, emphasizing the need for a reevaluation of the Clean Air Act's original intent regarding greenhouse gases.
- The 1970 Clean Air Act was intended to cover carbon dioxide emissions.
- A study challenges the Supreme Court's ruling on the EPA's regulatory authority over greenhouse gases.
- Lawmakers recognized the potential threat of climate change from fossil fuel combustion.
- The research suggests Congress had a more profound understanding of climate issues than previously recognized.
- The findings will be published in the Ecology Law Quarterly.
Related
What SCOTUS just did to broadband, right to repair, the environment, and more
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference affects net neutrality, climate regulations, and consumer protections. This ruling challenges agency authority, potentially leading to more legal challenges and regulatory obstacles.
Supreme Court overtrns Chevron impacting net neutrlity, right to repair and more
The Supreme Court's overturning of Chevron deference impacts net neutrality, climate regulations, and consumer protections. Federal agencies may face more judicial scrutiny, hindering rule-making. Challenges are expected in FCC's net neutrality efforts and EPA's climate policies. Regulatory hurdles may arise in tech regulation and market competition.
CO2 is making Earth greener–for now Science
A study in Nature Climate Change shows significant greening on 25-50% of Earth's vegetated lands due to increased CO2 levels. This greening, twice the size of the US, benefits plant growth but contributes to climate change. Carbon dioxide explains 70% of the effect, impacting global cycles. Researchers warn of potential acclimatization over time.
Oil Companies Know Carbon Capture Is Not a Climate Solution
Major oil companies are accused of misleading the public about carbon capture and storage (CCS) effectiveness. Investigations reveal skepticism within the industry, raising concerns about CCS's actual impact on climate change.
Plan to cut overlooked methane emissions could help stop global warming faster
Researchers from Duke University stress the urgent need to address methane emissions, proposing a three-step plan to reduce them, coordinate efforts with carbon dioxide, and enforce abatement measures for climate benefits.
10 commentsFor what it's worth, the linked press release's description of the Supreme Court's decision is wrong; the court did not, in fact, hold that "Congress had not empowered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases," but that it could not regulate in the manner that it did. And, so far as the statute at issue is concerned, the evidence is overwhelming that it was never intended to empower EPA to restructure the nation's electricity system. I wrote a fair bit about this at the time, and was apparently persuasive.[1]
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1530/204857/202...
If Congress wants the EPA to regulate CO2 they should just pass that as a law. The reticence to act on this is bananas. Congress has all the power here -- they can give the EPA discretion or specify a mandate for how they handle CO2.
"The term “new source” means any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after the publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed regulations) prescribing a standard of performance under this section which will be applicable to such source."
and
"The term “existing source” means any stationary source other than a new source."
Finally.. congress didn't hand EPA an unlimited authority to make decisions about sources. It handed them a process they must follow when it comes to ruling on "new sources."
With a law this complex, I'm not sure you can bring the intentions of a single sponsor into the consideration:
You would think that any competent lawyer would have had this research performed as part of the prior case. Makes me wonder what they actually found.
The fact that the drafters were aware of the issue and didn’t make it explicit actually cuts the other way.
Related
What SCOTUS just did to broadband, right to repair, the environment, and more
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference affects net neutrality, climate regulations, and consumer protections. This ruling challenges agency authority, potentially leading to more legal challenges and regulatory obstacles.
Supreme Court overtrns Chevron impacting net neutrlity, right to repair and more
The Supreme Court's overturning of Chevron deference impacts net neutrality, climate regulations, and consumer protections. Federal agencies may face more judicial scrutiny, hindering rule-making. Challenges are expected in FCC's net neutrality efforts and EPA's climate policies. Regulatory hurdles may arise in tech regulation and market competition.
CO2 is making Earth greener–for now Science
A study in Nature Climate Change shows significant greening on 25-50% of Earth's vegetated lands due to increased CO2 levels. This greening, twice the size of the US, benefits plant growth but contributes to climate change. Carbon dioxide explains 70% of the effect, impacting global cycles. Researchers warn of potential acclimatization over time.
Oil Companies Know Carbon Capture Is Not a Climate Solution
Major oil companies are accused of misleading the public about carbon capture and storage (CCS) effectiveness. Investigations reveal skepticism within the industry, raising concerns about CCS's actual impact on climate change.
Plan to cut overlooked methane emissions could help stop global warming faster
Researchers from Duke University stress the urgent need to address methane emissions, proposing a three-step plan to reduce them, coordinate efforts with carbon dioxide, and enforce abatement measures for climate benefits.