Community | July 31, 2008 | 16 comments

California to sue EPA on greenhouse gas emissions

source: http://www.enn.com/business/article/37818

Image
jefftego
California will sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for "wantonly" ignoring its duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ships, aircraft, and construction and agricultural equipment, state Attorney General Jerry Brown said on Wednesday.

Brown said the lawsuit, to be announced at a news conference at the Port of Long Beach on Thursday and filed in Washington after a 180-day waiting period mandated by the Clean Air Act, was meant to force the EPA into action.

The lawsuit follows two similar ones this year by California in conjunction with other states on car and truck emissions and ozone pollution.

"Ships, aircraft and industrial equipment burn huge quantities of fossil fuel, causing greenhouse gas pollution, yet President (George W.) Bush stalls with one bureaucratic dodge after another," said Brown, a strong advocate for the environment since his two terms as a liberal California governor in the 1970s and 1980s.

"Because Bush's Environmental Protection Agency continues to wantonly ignore its duty to regulate pollution, California is forced to seek judicial action," he said.

Brown said he was filing the lawsuit because he had petitioned the EPA three times to implement such regulations and was met only with a "pathetically weak" proposal that did not conclude greenhouse gases endangered public health.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Green,   Earth and Science
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Green,  Earth and Science,  8 more
  3. recommended by:
    merasyad
  4.     
    |

16 comments // California to sue EPA on greenhouse gas emissions

  • Hawkmang
    • 0
      Hawkmang  

    • @ onechance and plusaf, sorry to have missed the discussion. Summer weather pulled me away from the computer for a while. :-) I would add to what you've both been saying by posing the question: Could the function of inept government agencies be better served with the judicial system?

      I make no equivocations on this site about my libertarian position. And I feel that reeducating the American people in liberty (civil/economic) and the Constitution are key in solving many of our problems. We must know the difference between the philosophies of individualism and collectivism and fight tooth and nail for "inalienable" individual rights. "Democrats" and "republicans" alike should learn what the "free market" is instead of blindly rebuking or embracing it at a partisan level. Sometimes, I am simply amused at how some of my friends who identify with modern day U.S. "liberalism" [1] shun free market capitalism because they equate it with "neoconservatives" who DO NOT practice it. Neocons are more than happy to use government and market tinkering to pursue their own agendas.

      To expand on my original question, could an informed public, armed with a dedication for liberty, truth and justice do a better job than some government agencies?

      From Thomas Jefferson:
      "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?"

      "In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

      [1] "Classical liberalism" definition at Wikipedia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

    • 3 years ago
  • plusaf
  • onechance
    • 0
      onechance  
    • plusaf:

      So, once again, after all that yapping back and fourth, it turns out that we were on the same page to begin with, again.

      No more "of the same" please...

      Peace

    • 3 years ago
  • onechance
  • onechance
    • 0
      onechance  

    • I see what you're saying and I agree that people will and can make decisions for themselves... I am NOT in the "bail out" crew either, FYI.

      If people made stupid decisions and bought things they couldn't afford, bummer, deal with it. They can read and they can add, so I say next time, use your brain, not your all american brainwash...

      That all being said, do you NOT agree that the agencies that are ALREADY put in place should do their jobs and be the agencies they were set up to be?

      You still haven't addressed THAT. I never said we need MORE, I just (from the beginning) said they need to do what they are paid to do.

      Going off on tangents about climate change and all that is too much to address for now.

    • 3 years ago
  • plusaf
  • onechance
    • 0
      onechance  
    • plusaf:

      Look, I'm not saying we need "more" regulation, I said, and will say again, that the people in place being paid to do something, should do it. It's simple.

      Also, you haven't answered my question... What's your grand idea/answer?

      You haven't given me one, you only keep repeating that you think Government should have no part in anything.

      Are people going to build clean cars of their own, with their bare hands? Are the companies that pollute going to regulate themselves when there's no oversight?

      Come on plusaf, let's hear it.

    • 3 years ago
  • pithy
    • 0
      pithy  

    • Personally I would love to see all the laws enacted in California. Just wait until your taxes GO UP to pay for all those new EPA laws. You will be taxed on everything like in the EU at 50% ...hahahaha. California is a D U M P! A cesspool of liberal idiots and illegals. People there will get what they deserve and will cry about it forever...yeah, i hope the EPA does hold up the laws there. Not a more deserving state, well, a few in the East that way too.

      You silly people, Trickx are for kids.

    • 3 years ago
  • onechance
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  

    • It's not so much that agencies like the EPA and BLM are sold out, but rather that our current administration has placed puppets at their lead positions. The top BLM official is a former coal company CEO who was placed where he is in the BLM by Bush.

      What I want to know is why don't we elect these people like we do DA's? Why do we let who ever is president choose who will preside over an agency that is supposed to monitor environmental issues, or land usage?

    • 3 years ago
  • plusaf
  • onechance
    • 0
      onechance  
    • plusaf:

      plusaf, I never once said I wanted MORE Government anything... I simply talked to the department that was ALREADY installed, and told them to do their fucking jobs.

      That's not repeating the cycle, that's implementing it to do what my fucking tax dollars pay it to do.

      What do YOU propose with your cocky-assed response? ANARCHY?

      Come on plusaf, give me all the answers, please...
      You seem to think you know them all...

    • 3 years ago
  • onechance
    • 0
      onechance  

    • The EPA is so sold out. I went to a public meeting with them and spoke to them and they didn't even react.

      I told them that I shouldn't have to take work off to tell them to do their jobs...

      Fed up.

    • 3 years ago
  • regularrf
  • stopnoise
    • 0
      stopnoise  

    • I think this is necessary but first I want you to reflect on this;

      EPA was created with the American tax payers money to do the work that is supposed to do. When an Agency that calls itself EPA needs to be sue, corruption it is at its pick. Here goes the legal profession heroic action against the corrupted. Wouldn't be simple by just firing the rats?

    • 3 years ago
  • diode
  • jjmaster
  • Varex_Sythe
  • stephenthomson
  • Yoshi1
    • 0
      Yoshi1  

    • It bothers me that California is trying to reduce the amount of pollution that it pumps into the atmosphere and the federal government is trying to stop them. Maybe we should just let California run the EPA it seems like they would do a much better job.

    • 3 years ago
  • Dmitri_Molotov
  • spaceboi
    • 0
      spaceboi  
    • Yoshi1:

      I think you might have the answer here I truly believe that Cali could would do a much better job. And remember Less pollution = Less reliance of fossil fuels.

    • 3 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos