Environmental protection agency summary - interesting phrase
Original Board Strenght Test Results The first method explored was a small-scale rock crusher powered by a 1 HP motor that could fit and be safely operated in the lab space. The size of the crushed pieces was not small enough to fit into the hammer mill grinder to be refined into powder. The bandsaw method previously mentioned had to be used in combination with the rock crusher to pulverize the boards. Figure 1: Rock Crusher Jaw Configureation The second method explored was a wood chipper since it has the capability of shredding branches and twigs. A wood chipper was considered because of its blade configuration which consists of a disc with multiple sharp blades rotating at a high RPM, which results in the board pieces coming into contact with the blades multiple times before exiting. environmental protection agency summary.
Appeals court[ edit ] The U. The lower court was sharply divided on whether the petitioners had " standing ", a personalized injury creating a right to claim remedial action from the government through the courts i. One of the three judges found no standing while a second of the three postponed a factual decision for any later protectioon.
environmental protection agency summary Although it had granted certiorarithe Supreme Court could have revisited the question of standing to dodge a difficult decision and dismiss the case for lack of standing. However, once certiorari has been granted, such a reversal is rare. Granting of certiorari[ edit ] Issues[ edit ] Whether the petitioners had standing. Whether carbon dioxide is an "air pollutant" causing "air pollution" as defined by the CAA. If carbon dioxide reflecting telescope not an air pollutant causing air pollution, then the EPA has no authority under the CAA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles dnvironmental the basis of policy considerations not enumerated in section a 1.
Suggestions
Arguments[ edit ] The Petitioners argued that the definition in the CAA is so broad that carbon dioxide must be counted as an air pollutant. They claimed that the question was controlled by the words of the statute, so that factual debate was immaterial.
Furthermore, the Petitioners filed substantial scientific evidence that the toxicity of carbon dioxide results from high concentrations and that causation of global warming transforms the gas into a pollutant. If the statutory definition of the CAA includes carbon proetction, then the Federal courts would have no discretion to reach any other conclusion. The definition contained in the statute, not evidence or opinion, would control the outcome.
The law's definition of air pollutant contains "any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive]
I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are mistaken. Let's discuss.