{"id":3281,"date":"2012-02-28T19:05:29","date_gmt":"2012-02-29T00:05:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=3281"},"modified":"2012-03-02T10:20:30","modified_gmt":"2012-03-02T15:20:30","slug":"day-one-of-landmark-clean-air-cases-a-report-from-the-courtroom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2012\/02\/28\/day-one-of-landmark-clean-air-cases-a-report-from-the-courtroom\/","title":{"rendered":"Day One of Landmark Clean Air Cases: A Report from the Courtroom"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. heard oral arguments in two of EPA\u2019s critical climate protections: EPA\u2019s finding that six greenhouse gases endanger the human health and welfare of current and future generations; and EPA\u2019s greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light trucks.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

I had the chance to sit in the courtroom and listen to the historic arguments. Here\u2019s a look at some of the highlights.<\/span><\/p>\n

The courtroom doors opened at 8:00 am. Arguments began a little after 9:00 in front of a packed courtroom. They lasted almost three hours, during which time Chief Judge Sentelle and Circuit Judges Tatel and Rogers focused closely on the legal underpinnings of EPA\u2019s actions. <\/span><\/p>\n

The questioning often returned to the importance of the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em>. In that decision, the High Court determined that greenhouse gases are \u201cair pollutants\u201d under America\u2019s clean air laws, and directed EPA to determine whether they endanger human health and welfare on the basis of science.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

Against this backdrop, today\u2019s Petitioners forwarded non-scientific reasons that they claimed would permit EPA to avoid finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health. That line of reasoning prompted Chief Judge Sentelle to note that:<\/span><\/p>\n

Sometimes in reading Petitioners\u2019 briefs, I got the feeling that Massachusetts<\/em> hadn\u2019t been decided.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Among these non-scientific factors: Petitioners urged that EPA must consider humans\u2019 ability to adapt to a changing climate in determining whether greenhouse gases endanger human health.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In a hypothetical, Judge Tatel probed the flawed implications of that argument \u2013 he asked whether Petitioners\u2019 position meant that EPA could determine that a cancer-causing pollutant did not pose a danger to public health on the grounds that society may, at some future point, develop a cure for cancer.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

The court then turned to the second case for the day \u2013 the challenge to the clean car standards. Petitioners urged that EPA should have declined to adopt these standards, or delayed adoption indefinitely, on account of the alleged implications such standards would have for large sources of climate pollution.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The judges\u2019 questions again turned to the plain terms of the Clean Air Act, which directs that EPA \u201cshall\u201d issue emissions standards for new motor vehicles once the agency makes an endangerment determination. The judges questioned Petitioners about why they thought it possible to evade such a clear statutory command.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

U.S. auto makers intervened in this second case in support of EPA\u2019s rules. The car companies noted during today\u2019s arguments that the legal challenges are peculiar for three reasons: <\/span><\/p>\n