7wattbulb’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Melamine

  Can you explain?On Umbra on plastic and kids posted 2 years, 7 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  not in the clear yet

  I'm as pleased with this decision as anyone else, but David's article is slightly misleading on one point.  If you look at page 5 of the decision (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf), the text reads (with my emphasis):

  "Under the Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President's ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions."

  There's no doubt that the majority was less than pleased with the EPA's "laundry list", but they're still giving them an opportunity to offer a statutory rationale for not regulating GHGs.  Look forward to some very creative interpretations of the Clean Air Act in the coming months!On This is a game changer posted 2 years, 7 months ago 19 Responses