Over-regulation much?

[jackofallgeeks]

Actual arguments about Global Warming aside, This sounds to me like pure mania. My thoughts can generally be summed up with this paragraph, from the article:

Unlike particulate matter and smog-forming chemicals, carbon dioxide can't be filtered or trapped. The only way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to burn less fuel.

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

(This is not sarcastic) I'm not sure I quite follow what you think is mania. We have all sorts of regulations that limit fuel use (e.g., CAFE, as the article mentions), and while you might not agree with them they don't strike me as bizarre.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't have thought that was sarcastic (at least, I don't think I would have). I admit that my reaction's a little knee-jerk, and I don't think that CAFE is bizarre, either.

I suppose what rubs me wrong is a combination of things. Firstly, I think it's... odd, at least, for the EPA to be regulating a generally non-harmful gas. CAFE isn't the EPA's (unless I misread that), and as such if we're going for more regulations on fuel efficiency we should call a spade a spade and go to the DOT.

I think what really strikes me most as mania is the idea that a group is taking a government agency to court in order to get said agency to regulate as they wish. that is not, as near as I can tell, the Courts' place but rather the place of the Legislature. If these people want more regulations, take it to Congress. That I'd be OK with, even if I don't agree with their end goal. (And, strictly speaking, I'm not sure I do disagree, as fuel efficiency is good for the consumer, me.)

So I think that's it. Taking an agency to court with the aim of enacting tighter regulations when (1) said regulations are probably not within said agency's jurisdiction and (2) regulation is the place of the Legislature, not the Judiciary.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a bit of a weird situation. You're right - normally you can't *compel* an agency to do something (there's a legal term for this that's escaping me - but, e.g., M had a law school case where someone called 911 b/c an old woman was being attacked and the police didn't come. They tried to sue, but the law is basically that you can't *force* the police to respond to any particular crime). The argument is basically that they *already* went to the legislature, the Clean Air Act directs the EPA to regulate certain kinds of things, so it's (in the eyes of the plaintiffs) a matter of trying to get the agency to do what the legislature demanded. There's not really a legislative way around *that* problem - all Congress could do would be, I don't know, pass another law that says, "no, seriously, implement the Clean Air Act."

Whether or not the Clean Air Act covers CO2 is a matter of interpreting the law (is it a harmful gas? Well... no, unless it's in the atmosphere... in which case yeah, but that's where it's going so...), which is precisely what the courts are there to do.

There might also be a separation-of-powers argument, since the EPA might be arguing (haven't read their brief) that the parts of the CAA that direct them to do stuff are in fact unconstitutional encroachments on executive prerogatives to use discretion.

As to how to do it, yeah, that's another sort of problem. You're right: CAFE is DOT. I thought your objection was just to the concept of regulating C02 b/c you can't stop it without burning less fuel (b/c of the graf you cited). But I'm not sure that regulating fuel efficiency should be outside the realm of the EPA in principle - after all, they regulate other sorts of emissions for cars (I believe) and they certainly regulate emissions for factories, etc. - and you could just as easily say that factory regulation should be the province of OSHA, or the Chamber of Commerce, etc. It would be potentially messy to have *two* sets of fuel-efficiency standards in place (one from DOT and one from EPA), but that strikes me as more of a practical than conceptual/legal problem. I bet most of these groups would be pretty happy if the EPA were to say, "OK, we're going to talk to DOT and make sure that they're taking environmental protection into account when they set efficiency standards."

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Being the case that the argument is over what CAA does and does not say, there is a legislative solution -- amend the act to specifically designate Co2 as one of the emissions that the EPA is to regulate. I don't think that's quite the same as "no, seriously, implement the Clean Air Act."

But I see your point -- if the issue is clearing up what the law says, that's what the Courts are for. As far as that goes (and be mindful of my general ignorance on the issue), I don't think it's unreasonable for the Courts to say, "no, Co2 doesn't qualify" on the basis of the fact that the EPA generally regulates directly-harmful particulates and poisons.

You can argue, as many would, that C02 is a dangerous gas by virtue of Global Warming, ie. that it causes solar energy to stay trapped in our atmosphere and boil us like proverbial frogs. and this may well be the case, but I refuse to get into a discussion on Global Warming (I haven't the strength nor the interest). however, I think it's a bit of a far-cry to say that Co2 is directly harmful (unless it's, say, the only thing in your lungs and can't get out, but even then I'd argue not -- it's the lack of oxygen and not the presence of Co2 that kills and, unless I'm wrong, Co2 doesn't cling to the lungs the way deadly CO does). So I don't think the EPA is responsible. But that's the issue at hand, I suppose.

Not to say I don't think it should be regulated; just not by the EPA. The DoT already does fuel-efficiency regulations, and since that's the only way to regulate Co2, just take it up with them. I don't think the EPA should have to say, "OK, guys, we'll talk to DoT for you." Just go directly to them.

So perhaps I'm more irritated by the apparent misdirection of this suit.