- Change for America on Science and Tech Policy: Part 1
- Taking a Short Break
- Transition Team Deploys Its First Public Web 2.0 Tools
- Victory for Stem Cells in Michigan
- White Open Spaces
- Historical Election Maps and Open Mapping Research
- Scary Regulatory Maneuvers in Bush’s Last Days
- FDA Did Not Finish Its Homework On BPA
- Digital Freedom of Expression and Human Rights
- Traumatic Brain Injury and Helmet Design
- Gates Foundation Funds Research, Venture Capital Style
- A Brief History of Lead Regulation
Congress Looks to the Clean Air Act for Controlling GHGs
flick.com/jpmatth
No one is expecting an executive order mandating federal regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act between now and January, but it is promising to have the Senate Committee on Environmental and Policy Works addressing the issue this morning. Speakers at the hearing include Jason Burnett, former associate deputy administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, who resigned this summer after disputes over the EPA’s inaction following the Supreme Court’s decision that the agency must regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Also speaking will be Bill Kovacs, vice president of Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs under the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who said in a recent report that regulating CO2 under the Act would overburden the EPA.
Chris Mooney wrote previously here at Science Progress that the EPA has been under extreme pressure to address global warming, but under the influence of the Bush administration, it has side-stepped (and even back-tracked) on the issue. The EPA has refused to regulate greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act, a stance which has led to scandals and lawsuits.
With frustration growing among some states, attorneys general are directly suing companies that emit greenhouse gases, such as Exxon Mobil and electric power plants. Mooney, who covered this simmering issue in a column entitled “The Coming Global Warming ‘Scopes’ Trial,” said the attorneys are blaming climate change on these companies, using scientific evidence to show the relationship between emissions and a shifting environment. And with last year’s Massachusetts vs. EPA case giving climate change advocates legal standing, courts must now analyze these claims. The lawsuits against carbon emitters may portend an emerging trend in science-based litigation similar to the suits brought against big tobacco.
Comments on this article
The big tobacco lawsuits are not the best model in these carbon emissions cases - unfortunately. On tobacco, the government agencies did their job in identifying and publicizing the health risks. So the tobacco companies that used deception to counter that record of government actions could be legally held accountable. You can point to the 1964 Surgeon General’s report on smoking as the point at which tobacco companies would reasonably be expected to be on the hook for damages.
The Federal/state governments have done nothing comparable on emissions. The 1992 Rio Treaty on climate change should function as a comparable event for the carbon emitting companies. But the subsequent lack of U.S. government actions undercut that point.
I would see more promise in a legal strategy that had advocates taking on government agencies, not the companies.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:59 pm