Greens, automakers hail greenhouse gas ruling

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Politico:

“Automakers are already producing almost 300 highly fuel-efficient models, so we have made a huge investment in technologies and want to sell these models in high numbers,” the automakers said. The Obama administration worked with the auto industry, environmentalists, states and the Transportation Department when setting its greenhouse gas emissions limits for cars, which align with DOT fuel-efficiency standards.

But the National Association of Manufacturers said the ruling will result in lost jobs and that the group “will consider further legal options on appeal.”

“Today’s ruling is a setback for businesses facing damaging regulations from the EPA,” manufacturers association president and CEO Jay Timmons said in a statement. He added: “The EPA’s decision to move forward with these regulations is one of the most costly, complex and burdensome regulations facing manufacturers. These regulations will harm their ability to hire, invest and grow. By moving forward, the EPA is adding to the mounting uncertainty facing manufacturers of all sizes.”

Climate skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) lamented: “This ‘big win’ for the Obama EPA is a huge loss for every American, especially those in the heartland states which rely on fossil fuel development and the affordable energy that comes with it.”

Among other aspects of the complex case — Coalition for Responsible Regulations v. EPA — the court ruled that all of the EPA’s challengers “fall far short” of having legal standing to challenge the agency’s attempt to minimize the burden of complying with the greenhouse gas regulations.

The EPA issued a “tailoring rule” meant to limit the greenhouse gas regulations’ scope, arguing that it would otherwise take an impractically huge number of employees to regulate GHGs from millions of sources. “Indeed, the Timing and Tailoring Rules actually mitigate Petitioners’ purported injuries,” the court said.

Most insiders didn’t expect the court to wholly dismiss the so-called endangerment finding on greenhouse gases — the judges seemed convinced in oral arguments that the agency was relying on a strong precedent from the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling that the Clean Air Act could apply to greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles.

But many of the regulations that followed could have been on shakier legal ground, and several observers said the appellate court would at the very least ask the agency to tweak its approach.

Instead, it upheld them all.

The court also lent strong support to the EPA’s interpretation of climate change science, saying it had a “substantial record of evidence” that greenhouse gases very likely cause climate change and that “extreme weather events, changes in air quality, increases in food- and water-borne pathogens, and increases in temperatures are likely to have adverse health effects.” The judges also said the record of the case supports the “EPA’s conclusion that climate change endangers human welfare by creating risk to food production and agriculture, forestry, energy, infrastructure, ecosystems, and wildlife,” as well as risks to water and coastal resources.

________

 

The EPA agenda continues, for now.