Reid: Administration Must Follow Environmental Laws

[bigtree]

SEARCHLIGHT, Nev., April 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid of Nevada released the following statement after the
Supreme Court's ruling today against the Bush Administration's position on
global warming regulation.

"Today, the Supreme Court ruled twice against the Bush Administration's
efforts to help special interests avoid environmental regulation. For six
long years, the Administration has deliberately misapplied the law and
undermined science to protect polluters instead of the American public."

"Now, the President needs to start implementing the Clean Air Act and
all our environment laws the way they are written, not the way their
friends want to read them. That will make the air we breathe cleaner and
really start dealing with global warming. The message to the President and
Vice President Cheney in the Supreme Court's decisions couldn't be clearer
-- stop obstructing environmental progress and start finding solutions."


http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/04-02-2007/0004558204&EDATE=MON+Apr+02+2007,+03:25+PM

[terip64]

1. kick and recommend! This is so important! n/t

[Monkeyman]

2. K&R

[katsy]

3. Reid sure is busy!

between this and threatening to cut off Iraq $$$.... I say bravo.

And take more time off to keep working Senator - kudos to Reid.

k/r

:applause:

[indepat]

4. The Executive Branch is supposed to implement/follow all laws, but history shows it

will do only what it wants and if the law does not help implement its agenda (PNAC), the law is not going to be followed. EOS

[Jim Lane]

5. More specifics of the Supreme Court's rulings

This information is from the Sierra Club's press release today about the decisions.

(1) Carbon dioxide as a pollutant: This decision was 5-4.

In the majority opinion, the Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants meet the definition of "air pollutant(s)" under the plain language of the (Clean Air Act). This ruling, in and of itself, does not compel EPA to issue regulations limiting the emissions of global warming pollutants. However, the CAA states that EPA "shall regulate" any air pollutant "reasonably anticipated" to endanger "public health or welfare," which includes effects upon "climate or weather." Since EPA incorrectly argued that carbon dioxide was not an air pollutant under the CAA, it refused to even issue an endangerment determination. Today’s ruling compels EPA to issue such a determination.

The Sierra Club was a party to this case and has several documents available on its website: http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/0316.asp


(2) Power plant emissions: This vote was unanimous, although with a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas.

The second decision issue today, also in an environmental case, upheld EPA's view that changes in power plants that may contribute to air pollution must be done only with a permit if there is an annual increase in emissions. The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit Court's view that the permit requirement applied only if there is an hourly increase in emissions.

[depakid]

6. Haven't read the case yet- but it portends well

for the current efforts to gut the Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management Act.

[symbolman]

7. K & R

For ONCE the SC is CORRECT..