Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voided yet another Bush Administration Clean Air Act regulation in Sierra Club v. EPA. The majority opinion by Judge Griffith (joined by Chief Judge Sentelle) begins:
The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act compel certain stationary sources of air pollution to obtain permits from state and local authorities that identify all emission limits for the source and also include “monitoring . . . requirements to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions.” 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(c). Sometimes, existing monitoring requirements do not “assure compliance.” The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) promulgated a rule preventing state and local authorities from supplementing these inadequate monitoring requirements. We vacate this rule because it is contrary to the statutory directive that each permit must include adequate monitoring requirements.
Judge Kavanaugh has a brief dissent, which begins:
I agree completely with the majority opinion about bedrock principles of statutory interpretation. The plain meaning of the text controls; courts should not strain to find ambiguity in clarity; courts must ensure that agencies comply with the plain statutory text and not bypass Chevron step 1. And I strongly align myself with the majority’s quotation from Justice Frankfurter about the best tool of statutory interpretation: “Read the statute; (2) read the statute; (3) read the statute!” Maj. Op. at 10. In this case, however, I respectfully part ways with the majority opinion because the relevant statutory language supports EPA’s 2006 rule.
This decision comes one month after the D.C. Circuit completely vacated the Bush Administration's Clean Air Interstate rule in North Caroline v. EPA. Given the administration's other losses on New Source Review and mercury, among other things, I think it is fair to say that the D.C. Circuit has repudiated the vast bulk of the Bush Administration's clean air regulatory reforms, which were the Administration's most notable and significant (if not always wise) environmental policy initiatives. The Administration devoted more time and effort to these reforms than any other environmental initiative, and they have precious little to show for it.
UPDATE: The NYT covers the decision (and quotes this blog post) here.
Oh, of course they weren't always 'wise', according to the Gaiafascists. Trying to protect the economy from overzealous anti-corporate regulation, especially in the middle of the Clinton Recession? Obviously a bad idea.
For this failure, at least, we can be grateful.
Nonsense. They got eight years of not having to abide by the previous regime. Never underestimate the power of stall tactics.
I love when people parody themselves and don't even realize it. SATA, why do you suppose China is building your Ipod and not the USA?
Hint: you'll have to ignore your previous post to answer.
It's hard to top Swine for self-parody. Maybe impossible. The Clinton Recession?
And I love it when people fail to detect intentional parody, especially of the blindingly obvious variety ;-)
I'm sure you think you're being sarcastic :)
Heh.
It's excessively regulated. There's no reason why it shouldn't be subject to supply and demand, like everything else.
But if the Environmentalists, Judges and the Courts are determined to play politics and legislate from the bench, then the Administration should engineer a train wreck in putting together the regulation. And thereby force the process back to the legislative branch of government, by turning the Court issued law into a political disaster.
For example if the Sierria Club uses mercury to ban coal, the administration should just ban other power sources that emit a de minimus quantity of toxics at the same time. In that way coal, oil, natural gas, gasoline and diesel (coal/mercury, natural gas/ 1,4-dioxan, gasoline/benzene, diesel/sulfur dioxide) would all be banned at the same time. A ban on all these chemicals at once, would give the Administration the leverage to make the Congress act. In that way, the Administration could push thought new laws to govern EPA that would consider economics and revise the Clean Air Act. The Administration could even use selective enforce in areas on non-attainment such as the Bay Area to make liberal supported of these special interests see the “light” by taking it away.
For supply and demand to be an effective regulator of the market, there has to be private ownership of the commodity in question. Who owns the air? And once you establish ownership of "your air", how do you maintain control of it? Brand it like cattle?
"I'm sorry, those are my oxygen molecules. See the logo imprinted on the side?"
Sorry, but you've violated the Narrative.
I've added my own thoughts on the court's decision here: NRDC blog post.
Or I could trade my future final ten years of oxygen consumption and get something even more cool! Perhaps a sarcasm and intentional parody detector??!!
I'm assuming anyone holding this opinion believes carbon cap and trade to be similarly nonsensical?
Otherwise you would be maintaining the position that what we inhale is not subject to market forces but what we exhale is.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.