So is this Planet - 1, Planet Rapers - 0?

**US court upholds agency's global warming rules**

Published June 26, 2012

Associated Press

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the first-ever U.S. regulations aimed at reducing the gases blamed for global warming, handing down perhaps the most significant decision on the issue since a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases could be controlled as air pollutants.

The rules, which had been challenged by industry groups and several states, will reduce emissions of six heat-trapping gases from large industrial facilities such as factories and power plants, as well as from automobile tailpipes.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington said that the Environmental Protection Agency was "unambiguously correct" in using existing federal law to address global warming, denying two of the challenges to four separate regulations and dismissing the others.

Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said no one expected the sweeping decision issued by the court Tuesday, and said the move was exceeded in importance only by the Supreme Court ruling five years ago.

It also lands during a presidential election year where there are sharp differences between the two candidates when it comes to how best to deal with global warming.

President Barack Obama's administration has come under fierce criticism from Republicans, including his probable opponent Mitt Romney, for pushing ahead with the regulations after Congress failed to pass climate legislation, and after the Bush administration resisted such steps.

In 2009, the EPA concluded that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, triggering controls on automobiles and other large sources. But the administration has always said it preferred to address global warming through a new law.

Carol Browner, Obama's former energy and climate adviser, said the decision "should put an end, once and for all, to any questions about the EPA's legal authority to protect us from dangerous industrial carbon pollution," adding that it was a "devastating blow" to those who challenge the scientific evidence of climate change.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson called the ruling a "strong validation" of the approach the agency

has taken.

The court "found that EPA followed both the science and the law in taking common-sense, reasonable actions to address the very real threat of climate change by limiting greenhouse gas pollution from the largest sources," Jackson said in a statement.

At a meeting in New Hampshire last year Romney, said it was a mistake for the EPA to be involved in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas.

"My view is that the EPA is getting into carbon and regulating carbon has gone beyond the original intent of the legislation, and I would not go there," he said.

The court on Tuesday seemed to disagree with Romney's assessment when it denied two challenges to the administration's rules, including one arguing that the agency erred in concluding greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. Lawyers for the industry groups and states argued that the EPA should have considered the policy implications of regulating heat-trapping gases along with the science. They also questioned the agency's reliance on a body of scientific evidence that they said included significant uncertainties.

The judges -- Chief Judge David Sentelle, who was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, and David Tatel and Judith Rogers, both appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton -- flatly rejected those arguments.

"This is how science works," the unsigned opinion said. "EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."

Read more:

8 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Now everyone will ride a bicycle, like me. Or they will have to pay, man.

  • tefft
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    I easily have a diverse take and place any planets in the tenth living house via fact the main effective. the clarification is via fact the planet is above the horizon that's extra suitable than a planet decrease than the horizon as is the as planets in the 1rst. Secondly, the planets in tenth living house supply extra opportunities for progression by their expression. no longer asserting that planets in first are no longer reliable. yet i know many astrologers who supply severe regards to the tenth living house via fact it is composed of your profession, your acceptance, your credit and so on.. those with a reliable tenth living house consistently look to alter into infamous, reliable or undesirable :)). the subsequent house is the seventh for me via fact the planets are additionally above the horizons.

  • 8 years ago

    It will probably continue to the country-raping conservative Supreme court (a tragedy the American people can only blame on themselves for ever electing Republicans for President with the power of appointing justices).

  • 8 years ago

    Then park your car. Turn your air conditioner off. Cook your meals on an open fire. Walk everywhere even on vacation. Don't breathe because you release co2. Light your house with candles, but suck in the smoke, we don't want that out. Let your garbage rot in your yard, because the garbage pickup burns that evil sh8t they call gas. But please do me a favor and get the hell out of my life with all that bullsh8t.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    but it was judicial activism when the Court ruled in favor of Bush, right? (show me the scientific requirements to get a law degree!)

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Why did you copy and paste all of that sh}t? Nobody is interested in reading a novel.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    What your question exactly here ?

  • 8 years ago

    where is the question?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.