Two separate coalitions of states, environmental groups, and state and local pollution regulators announced Thursday their respective intents to sue the U.S. EPA over its failure to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from ships and planes; the group of states and pollution regulators is also suing over emissions from agricultural and construction equipment. The states, agencies, and green groups have each tried to spur the EPA to determine whether emissions from marine vessels, planes, and other equipment endanger public health and welfare, but so far the agency has dodged the question (much as it has in the case of passenger vehicles). The two coalitions' cases hinge on the Supreme Court ruling last year that ordered the EPA to decide whether greenhouse-gas emissions endangered public health or welfare. "More than 15 months after the Supreme Court's order, EPA, once again, has ignored its legal and moral obligation to act quickly to protect the health and welfare of Americans," said Martin Wagner of Earthjustice. If no action is taken by the agency in 180 days, the groups will launch formal lawsuits, but with a new, possibly more climate-friendly administration as the defendant.
source: Earthjustice, Associated Press, Reuters
U.S. warns China against ‘stillborn’ climate deal
Walking: A simple focus for the Smart Growth movement
Comments
View as Flat
Masked Goddess Posted 9:12 am
31 Jul 2008
And to quote a popular bumper sticker: if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:01 pm
31 Jul 2008
Permalink
guade00 Posted 12:52 am
01 Aug 2008
I don't recall ever being confused about this administration's interests. I don't think anyone was confused. No one voted for "W" for his commitment to environmental issues. His choice of EPA administrator reflects his views on the importance of environmental protection and the role of government in that pursuit. And the American public got exactly whom they voted for.
The reality is--we really don't want this particular EPA to issue rules on greenhouse gas emissions anyway. We will do better to wait for the next administration, McCain's or Obama's.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:24 am
01 Aug 2008
The problem here is the system itself. As I've said before, it would be far more representative if Congress were to appoint the heads of agencies instead of the president. The president is the least representative of all elected officials in the U.S., and should thus have the least amount of power, not the most. If heads of agencies like EPA were appointed by Congress, people like Stephen Johnson would not be in charge of it.
Permalink