Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Donate to DCW


Follow DCW on Twitter
Follow DCW on Facebook
2016 Democratic Convention
2016 Republican Convention Charlotte Host Committee
DNCC
2010 Census

Follow DCW on Google+
DCW iPhone App Info
A Guide to DemConWatch
Tags
FAQ
2008 Democratic Primary Links
2008 Democratic National Convention Links
DemConWatch Archives '05-'08
DemConWatch Speeches
Inauguration Information
DCW Store

HOME
Mobile Version




Search


Advanced Search
Contributors:
MattOreo
DocJess

This site is not affiliated with the DNC, DNCC, or any campaign.

Email us at

Blog Roll
Frontloading HQ
The Field
MyDD
Swing State Project
DemNotes
DemRulz

DCW in the News
St. Louis Channel 2 News
AP
Politico
Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
NPR
Wired
US News & World Report

Who needs Climate Change Legislation More?

by: tmess2

Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 20:32:04 PM EDT


Today the Second Circuit issued an opinion in a case involving several states and organizations against the biggest utilities in the country.   In this case, the plaintiffs are alleging that, by producing excessive carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, these utilities are creating a public nuisance.  The district court had dismissed the case on several grounds of which two are important here.  First, the district court found that the issue of global warming was a political question.  Second, the district court found that the Clean Air Act preempted traditional state and federal common law claims like public nuisance.

The Second Circuit reinstated the case.  In particular, they found that the issue was not a political question just because the political branches might at some point choose to pass or not pass legislation on the issue.  They also found that the Clean Air Act was not specific enough to clearly preempt common law claims.  They also found that the regulations being enacted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of two years dealing with greenhouse gases and motor vehicles were still in an early stage and, presently, only covered motor vehicles, not stationary sources (like power plants).  As such, these regulations also do not yet preempt common law claims.

The bottom line with both this decision and the previous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (which all but required the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles) is that environmentalists are making some progress in the courts on placing restrictions on carbon dioxide.  Obviously, the judicial process is slow and there is no guarantee of a win in the end.  On the other hand, in the judicial process, facts do actually matter and the evidence strongly favors tougher regulations.

As such, both environmentalists and the utilities have to be asking which side loses if climate control legislation fails.  My personal belief is that legislation might produce a more workable scheme than a court decree will.  However, a court decree could also impose tougher rules than politicians would be willing to support.  If utilities do not tell the Republicans that they need to be at the table, the failure of climate change legislation could ultimately backfire on the utilities.

tmess2 :: Who needs Climate Change Legislation More?

Follow Democratic Convention Watch on Facebook and Twitter. Iphone/Android apps available.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email


Menu


Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Make a New Account


Currently 0 user(s) logged on.



Subscribe to Posts

DemConWatch on Twitter
DemConWatch on Facebook


View blog authority

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics

Who links to my website?

Sign the Petition (A)
Powered by: SoapBlox