Archive: February 21, 2010 - February 27, 2010
The current proposals by EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions result directly from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2007 that greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.
By Donald F. Boesch | February 26, 2010; 10:42 AM ET | Comments (6)
Given the gridlock in Congress over the climate bill, is the Obama administration's fallback strategy to let EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions a good idea? There is no doubt that the USA needs to act from a federal perspective on...
By David Hone | February 26, 2010; 10:29 AM ET | Comments (3)
First, let's get our terms right: The possibility that EPA will regulate greenhouse gas emissions was decidedly not "the Obama administration's fallback strategy." It's come about because the Supreme Court held that EPA is bound under the Clean Air Act to determine whether those emissions pose a danger...
By Robert J. Shapiro | February 25, 2010; 7:24 AM ET | Comments (1)
Like many questions regarding climate change, the answer has both a political and a substantive component. But in this case, neither provides an obvious response.
By Bernard Finel | February 23, 2010; 3:26 PM ET | Comments (1)
It is a horrible idea and EPA, given the recent comments by Administrator Lisa Jackson, may be coming to the same conclusion. Since greenhouse gas emissions are the byproduct of energy use to fuel economic growth and raise our standard of living, EPA regulation would inevitably involve attempting to regulate and manage the economy.
By William O'Keefe | February 23, 2010; 2:44 PM ET | Comments (6)