The Monthly Review is part of a continuing effort to improve communications about the role of geoscience in policy.
Current and archived monthly reviews are available online.
Subscribe to receive the Monthly Review directly.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear six cases challenging the regulations set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources this October. The court agreed to examine whether EPA, under the Clean Air Act, rightfully determined that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles should require permits. Those challenging the regulations state that the agency’s conclusions about the dangers from greenhouse gases were not supported by adequate evidence, that the tailpipe regulations were flawed, and that the agency was not authorized to regulate emissions from stationary sources. The Supreme Court’s review of the GHG rule is a sequel to the 2007 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, a ruling that required the EPA to regulate emissions of GHG from new motor vehicles if EPA concluded that the emissions endangered public health or welfare.
Sources: Supreme Court, Environmental Protection Agency