Guest-hosting Fox News' Your World, Eric Bolling asserted that "a couple months ago, the Obama administration empowered the EPA to declare five gases as dangerous gases." In fact, in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that GHGs "fit well within" the Clean Air Act's "definition of 'air pollutant' " and ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency is required under the Clean Air Act to examine the science on the effects of greenhouse gases and to issue appropriate regulations based on that assessment.
Loading the player ...
Bolling claimed "the Obama administration empowered the EPA" to issue endangerment finding on GHGs
From the February 10 edition of Fox News' Your World:
PHELIM McALEER (filmmaker): Where is Al Gore? I mean, you know, it's a national emergency here in Washington, the National Guard is out. Surely the man who says we're going to suffer global warming should be here explaining where is the global warming, Al? So let's, all of America, ask, where is Al?
BOLLING: Well, we know where a copy of his book is, right outside our studio. But you know, here is a question: Now, a couple of months ago, the Obama administration empowered the EPA to declare five gases as dangerous gases. Will this administration do nothing to get their agenda through -- whether it's the, you know, the EPA, through a new NOAA panel -- it seems like they'll do nothing -- they won't stop until they get cap and trade, or at least some form of it through?
McALEER: Well, it's nonsense that carbon dioxide is dangerous. The most dangerous thing to America is the six feet of snow that we're standing in.
In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that Clean Air Act required EPA to examine greenhouse gases
Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that Clean Air Act required EPA to examine greenhouse gases and that GHGs "fit well within" the Clean Air Act's "definition of 'air pollutant.' " In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that "the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming," as The Washington Post reported. The court stated that "EPA identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants" and further ruled:
Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's capacious definition of "air pollutant," EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition -- which includes "any air pollution agent ... , including any physical,chemical, ... substance ... emitted into ... the ambient air ... ," §7602(g) (emphasis added) -- embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhousegases are undoubtedly "physical [and] chemical ... substance[s]." Ibid.
Under the Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President's ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law," §7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. Pp. 30-32.
EPA: Supreme Court "interprets the statute to allow for the consideration only of science." The EPA finding stated of the 2007 Supreme Court decision: "[I]n Massachusetts v. EPA, the court clearly indicated that the Administrator's decision must be a 'scientific judgment.' 549 U.S. at 534. She must base her decision about endangerment on the science, and not on policy considerations about the repercussions or impact of such a finding."