I don't know all the legal aspects that drove the Supreme Courts rulings, but the EPA should not be regulating CO2 emissions.  It is not a pollutant in the same sense as all the other pollutants (SOx, NOx, CO, etc.) that led to the Clean Air Act in the first place. (The language of the Clean Air Act means that the EPA can regulate our breathing?) It is the natural by-product of aerobic respiration and aerobic combustion of organic materials and fossil fuels. (For example CO2 emissions directly relates to fuel efficiency standards, despite claims by CARB to the contrary.)  This has far broader implications than what the EPA was initially set up for.

I understand and appreciate the CO2 emissions may need regulation at this point in time.  And I can appreciate that the Court's assignation of this regulation to the EPA is the closest match, in effect.

But CO2 emissions are so closely tied to energy use, one could argue the regulator should be part of the Department of Energy.  Plainly put, new regulation needs to be written to accommodate this.  It's too big of a problem to jam into an agency that was intended for something else.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

about Mass v EPA until Kate's piece about the Obama adviser's interview. Mass v EPA is a big deal. This post and Clean Air Jump-Start are very informative.

Most of the recent advances enviros have made have been in the courts. Lawyers are as important to environment as grassroot organizers.