As most of us are as aware, the Environmental Protection Agency has rather stringent standards for the greenhouse gas emissions from cars. These standards, however, do not exist without controversy. While the most eco-friendly among us believe EPA regulation is necessary — and if anything, the standards should be tougher — others believe the EPA infringes on their personal rights too much through its regulations. Soon, the Supreme Court itself will weigh in the fairness of some emissions standards. The SCOPUS has recently announced it will hear a case challenging the EPA greenhouse gas regulations for vehicles as well as stationary sources.
The History
This case stems from the 2007 case Massachusetts versus the Environmental Protection Agency, in which the judge decided the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions if it finds they are hazardous to human health. In 2009, the EPA discovered emissions from newer vehicles and sources such as power plants were dangerous. The EPA claimed these fumes not only affect us now but also pose a serious threat to future generations.
To many people, this made sense. After all, we are currently living in a world where the UV rays are much stronger than they were just a few decades ago. The incidence of skin cancer and other diseases caused by these rays has dramatically risen. In this sense, one could say the EPA regulations are similar to an alcohol detox center for the environment. Similar to an addict, the ozone can repair itself if we stop releasing harmful chemicals into the environment. In addition, if greenhouse gases can tear apart the ozone, one may wonder what kind of damage they are wreaking on our bodies when they’re inhaled. In fact, these emissions are poisonous — they can damage our lungs, internal organs and other parts of the body.
The Challenge
While it’s important to protect ourselves and our planet, some think the EPA does not have sufficient proof to back up its claims. Many agencies and state governments have challenged the new EPA standards in the past few years. Opponents say the regulations imposed in 2009 were not supported by enough research, and it was difficult to see the direct connection between the emissions and public health. In this sense, critics say the regulations are flawed. In addition, some say the EPA does not have the right to regulate emissions from stationary sources, such as businesses and power plants.
The Trial
Last year, three judges representing the United States Court of Appeals rejected the challenges to the EPA regulations. The Supreme Court agreed to listen this time; however, it will only hear some of the arguments. It has accepted six trial petitions, one of which is the Utility Air Regulatory Group versus Environmental Protection Agency, No. 12-1146. Specifically, the SCOPUS will judge whether or not the EPA has the right to regulate stationary emissions.
Currently, the EPA can controls the greenhouse gases released from almost all buildings. Residences, office complexes, industrial plants and virtually every type of building imaginable can be hit with fines if they do not comply with the EPA standards. This type of regulation operates at enormous cost — analysts estimate it costs tens of billions of dollars a year to enforce the stationary emissions standards. However, the Supreme Court has declined to judge whether or not the EPA enforced new emissions regulations without proper evidence. By doing so, it sets the precedent that the government has the right to regulate emissions to prevent climate change and environmental damage.