Search

The article reports on the five-four decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a position of the President George W. Bush Administration. It states that greenhouse gas emissions did not constitute pollutants as defined in the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decided motor-vehicle emissions make a "meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations" and to global warming. Moreover, the court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reevaluate its contention that has the discretion not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The article reports on the plan of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to gather data on air emissions on 6,000 animal feeding operations (AFO's) in the U.S. According to Granta Y. Nakayama, EPA assistant administrator, the AFO's agreements would ensure air compliance faster than its enforcement action. The AFO's would pay penalty based on the number of animals maintained at the operation and must comply with regulations such as Clean Air Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

The article reports on the five-four decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to tell the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that they have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. However, the court seemed displeased with the agency's arguments that foreign policy and economic consideration should give the EPA discretion as to whether it should regulate such emissions, and the President George W. Bush Administration was asked by the court to reevaluate its reasoning for the assertion. Moreover, the Supreme Court rendered an unanimous decision in the Duke Energy case, one of several high-profile legal battles concerning energy companies accused of violating the New Source Review (NSR) provisions of the Clean Air Act.