January 25 News: Federal Court Won’t Review Decision Striking Down EPA Rule

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the White House a review of an earlier decision striking down major Environmental Protection Agency rules to cut soot- and smog-forming power plant emissions that cross state lines. [The Hill]

A federal court won’t reconsider a decision that nullified major Environmental Protection Agency rules to cut soot- and smog-forming power plant emissions that cross state lines.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the Obama administration’s request for en banc, or full court, review of an August 2012 ruling that struck down the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in August to toss out the rule, and on Thursday the court announced that a majority on a wider panel of judges voted against a full-court rehearing.

“EPA is disappointed that the Court did not grant EPA’s petition for rehearing. The agency is reviewing the decision and will determine any appropriate further course of action once the review is complete,” EPA said in a statement late Thursday afternoon.

According to Munich Re, the world’s biggest reinsurance company, Global crop insurance claims for 2012 were the highest ever due to droughts reducing yields in the U.S., historically the biggest grower of corn and soybeans. [Bloomberg]

At one point yesterday, the price of emitting one ton of carbon under the European Union’s emission trading scheme crashed 40 percent, hitting a record low. [The Guardian]

In light of GOP opposition in Congress, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) put forward a slate of climate change actions yesterday that President Obama could execute under his own authority. [The Hill]

Regulators in the Northeast are forcing utilities to update their electrical grids, communications, and preparations for storms in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. [WSJ]

133 billion to 233 billion barrels of shale oil has been discovered in central Australia, potentially worth trillions of dollars. Though it remains unclear how commercially realistic it will be to actually access the oil. [The Telegraph]

11 Responses to January 25 News: Federal Court Won’t Review Decision Striking Down EPA Rule

  1. John McCormick says:

    The letter to the President from Rep. Waxman and Markey and Senator Whitehouse neither mentioned the State Department (a weak link thus far in America’s climate negotiations) nor China and the President’s opportunity to negotiate on a bi-lateral basis with the highest Chinese leadership.

    What are we waiting for? Wind and solar are not going to save our bacon, if anything can.

  2. Joan Savage says:

    Those international components are very worthy to pursue, but their success relies on cooperation of other nations.

    I not only forgive the newly invented Bicameral Climate Change Task Force for not mentioning international relations, I feel they made a sensible and strong move to draw the President’s attention to three actions that are completely within the scope – and responsibility – of the executive branch.

  3. John McCormick says:

    Joan, would that we had 50 years to figure out our survival.

    What you and so many American action-seekers miss is the huge lead time to get the US on any track. Assuming progress is made and measured, then, do we start to jawbone with China and India?…see, do as we do!

    This is an absolute one minute to midnight crisis approaching us that demands bold people saying and doing bold things.

  4. Joan Savage says:

    John, International progress is needed for sure, particularly given that 12 of the 14 carbon bombs are outside the US.

    The strength of the letter to the President is focus on the things he can do forthwith, without negotiation, and no excuses!

    We are past hearing the future-oriented “Yes We Can.” I think we need, “Now we Do,” both for the US and for those international negotiations.

  5. John McCormick says:

    Oh, Joan. the clock is ticking faster than you admit. So, hang on to your view. I don’t share your magnanimous view of people we have to trust will see the climate chaos as a comet coming at us rather than a moment to reflect and be politic.

  6. Joan Savage says:

    Davos strives to make climate talk more than hot air

    (Reuters) – Climate change is back on the global agenda, with debate in the corridors at Davos given fresh impetus by U.S. President Barack Obama and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon both highlighting it as top priority this week.

    Yet business leaders are still struggling to find the economic incentives to change current practices.

    The World Economic Forum (WEF) has not held back in its own assessment of the dangers, with former Mexican president Felipe Calderon warning of “a climate crisis with potentially devastating impacts on the global economy”.

  7. Sasparilla says:

    “Obama faces Keystone dilemma after Senate urges pipeline approval”

    Wasn’t flagged yesterday, 53 Senators saying move ahead on the Keystone XL extension and thank you to the oil companies for the campaign contributions….

    Interesting point in the article, not noted elsewhere is that the House Members (Waxman etc.) urging Obama to move forward with Presidential authority climate action options are not even discussing the XL…they are essentially treating it as if its a done deal….

    As others have noted just the Canadian tar sands and the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands (under development) represent 1/2 the CO2 we can emit, by themselves, till we get to the 2C target (however reckless and unrealistic that target is).

  8. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    The beauty of ‘Yes We Can’ for the businessmen who created and own Obama is that it is never to be followed by ‘Now We Do It’. The promise is always in the never-never of just over the time horizon, which, as we all know, is eternally retreating.

  9. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    The idea that the plutocrats’ and pathocrats’ coven at Davos can lead us in defeating the ecological catastrophe that their unbridled greed has caused, is akin to a conclave of paedophiles declaring their commitment to ‘child welfare’.

  10. Joan Savage says:

    I wouldn’t use those words, but we are not alone in our skepticism.

    A few years ago the Davos crowd had a guest, Oren Lyons, faithkeeper for the Onondaga Nation, who live not far from where I live.

    I can’t repeat all of his experiences with Davos, but two come to mind.

    He asked the attenders how many of those present were grandfathers, and many were, but not one of them was ready to change his business policies to protect the grandchildren. They excused themselves by saying that they had to show a profit for investors.

    Another Davos anecdote Oren Lyons has told is that one of the Davos folk asked him if he had an Indian prophecy. He said he did.

    He told them that they would meet again the next year and nothing would have changed!

    Now at least seven years later, the Davos people are talking about climate change. We shall see if they have changed.

  11. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    They cannot change. My choice of analogy was deliberate. The type I mentioned are often crippled souls, themselves victims of abuse, and many deeply hate what they are, but cannot change their behaviour. The Davos crowd harm far more children, and they and their behaviour are considered not just ‘normal’ by our pathological societies, but exemplary.