While arguments over the validity of anthropogenic effects on the environment have occurred constantly in the past, none have reached the extent and severity as the EPA’s findings that greenhouse gases endanger human welfare. The findings, which were mandated as a result of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, are eliciting responses, some for and others against the “endangerment” ruling. This week, sixteen states petitioned a federal appeals court to become parties in what is becoming a “major legal fight pitting EPA, states and environmental groups against industries, global warming skeptics, and other state challengers.”
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was asked to review the 2007 findings that greenhouse gases endanger human health, a ruling the EPA itself did not want to make. Previously, in 2003, the EPA announced that they lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and stated that even if they did have such authority, they would not exercise it. Massachusetts, backed by many other states, took the EPA to the Supreme Court in 2007, requesting they be responsible for GHG emission regulation. The court ruled in favor of the states, forcing the EPA to conduct findings which ultimately resulted in regulation of GHG’s under the Clean Air Act.
Just recently, the court filed a single lawsuit challenging the EPA’s endangerment finding, titled “Coalition for Responsible Regulation Inc., et. Al., v. EPA” comprised of a combination of the sixteen state’s petitions. The argument that many of the states use as grounds for objection is that their economic interests are too important to deal with ‘burdensome permitting requirements that would come from… forthcoming regulations’. As always, economic incentives and big businesses are trying to stand in the way of important environmental regulations.
The EPA is not alone though. Many states- such as Arizona, California, New York and Washington, among others- asked to intervene on behalf of the EPA. They urge the court to understand that a change in its ruling will effect ‘the public health and welfare of their residents, and will also affect a host of global warming impacts that their states suffer from and will continue to suffer from in the future.” If, for some reason, the courts do overturn their previous ruling, our most important carbon emission standards could end and seriously detriment our future, our planet, and our health. It is a pity that, yet again, monetary influences and powerful business corporations might stand in the way of important and necessary regulations. Without repercussions, they will continue to cause global harm.
Whether or not the side of the petitioners will even be heard in court remains to be seen. Until then, parties with interests on both sides continue to help efforts as they see fit. Numerous coal, industrial, and economic associations have given their support to the petitioners, while environmental agencies have done the same to uphold the emission regulations. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, filed a motion to participate in order to provide information about climate change science if necessary. Hopefully, the court will uphold it's previous ruling, forcing the EPA to regulate GHG's under the CAA and the United States can finally be held accountable for it's excessive carbon emissions. 
No comments:
Post a Comment