Download Free Supreme Courts Climate Change Decision Massachusetts V Epa Rs22665 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Supreme Courts Climate Change Decision Massachusetts V Epa Rs22665 and write the review.

Winner of the Julia Ward Howe Prize “The gripping story of the most important environmental law case ever decided by the Supreme Court.” —Scott Turow “In the tradition of A Civil Action, this book makes a compelling story of the court fight that paved the way for regulating the emissions now overheating the planet. It offers a poignant reminder of how far we’ve come—and how far we still must go.” —Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature On an unseasonably warm October morning, an idealistic young lawyer working on a shoestring budget for an environmental organization no one had heard of hand-delivered a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency, asking it to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from new cars. The Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to regulate “any air pollutant” thought to endanger public health. But could carbon dioxide really be considered a harmful pollutant? And even if the EPA had the authority to regulate emissions, could it be forced to do so? The Rule of Five tells the dramatic story of how Joe Mendelson and the band of lawyers who joined him carried his case all the way to the Supreme Court. It reveals how accident, infighting, luck, superb lawyering, politics, and the arcane practices of the Supreme Court collided to produce a legal miracle. The final ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, by a razor-thin 5–4 margin brilliantly crafted by Justice John Paul Stevens, paved the way to important environmental safeguards which the Trump administration fought hard to unravel and many now seek to expand. “There’s no better book if you want to understand the past, present, and future of environmental litigation.” —Elizabeth Kolbert, author of The Sixth Extinction “A riveting story, beautifully told.” —Foreign Affairs “Wonderful...A master class in how the Supreme Court works and, more broadly, how major cases navigate through the legal system.” —Science
In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency formally refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, explaining that it had no authority under the Clean Air Act to undertake such regulation and that it would, in any event, decline to exercise such authority for various policy reasons. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court rejected EPA's decision on both counts. The Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and it narrowly circumscribed the circumstances under which the agency could refuse to decide whether greenhouse gases may endanger public health or welfare. This Article, written before the Supreme Court's decision was announced and based on the author's briefs for petitioners in the case, examines in detail the reasons why EPA's views on statutory authority and discretion were incorrect.
In the spring of 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must promulgate automobile tailpipe greenhouse gas emission standards under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). American environmentalists hailed the Supreme Court's decision as an important victory in the battle to curb global warming. This article argues to the contrary that: 1) a large body of economic work demonstrates that the likely geographic and temporal pattern of costs and benefits to the U.S. from climate change bears no resemblance to the pollution problems that Congress intended to deal with in the Clean Air Act - with moderate climate change predominantly benefiting, rather than harming, the U.S. - so that that the Clean Air Act cannot reasonably be interpreted to cover greenhouse gas emissions; 2) By effectively forcing the EPA to regulate ghg emissions under a statute that was never intended to cover the very different problem of climate change, the Court has changed the policy status quo in a way that makes socially desirable federal climate change legislation less likely; and 3) given the global nature of the greenhouse gas emission problem, unilateral emission limits in the U.S. are likely to be worse than ineffective, in that they will likely have the perverse effect of lessening the incentive for latecomers to climate change regulation (such as China) to themselves take costly action to reduce such emissions. The article concludes by arguing that a sensible formulation of U.S. climate change policy would involve measures to respond both to the long-term threat to the U.S. and the short-term threat to developing countries. There are policy instruments appropriate to these goals: large increases in subsidies for research and development into clean coal and alternative fuels to respond to the long term threat to the U.S.; redirecting foreign aid to fund climate change adaptation in developing countries to respond to the short term threat to developing countries.
This book examines lawsuits over climate change that have been brought around the world. It can serve as a resource for those interested in the problem of climate change and in the role that courts are playing in climate regulation. The chapters analyze examples of cases in state, national, and international tribunals, as well as this litigation's broader significance.