Arresting climate change through incremental steps: Massachusetts v environmental protection agency

Environmental and Planning Law Journal

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 245-249

  Baird, Rachel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 37249080670     PISSN: 0813300X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (32)

1. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) (2 April 2007), per Stevens J at 23. Decision available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/ 05-1120.pdf (viewed 19 June 2007).
2. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Roberts CJ at 33.
3. The petitioners included 12 States, four local authorities and 13 environmental groups.
4. Massachuseus v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 2.
5. Stevens J joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer JJ formed the majority. Roberts CJ, Scalia, Thomas and Alito JJ in dissent.
6. This is standing under Art III of the United States Constitution. See Ward S, Warming Up to Standing, American Bar Association Journal eReport (6 April 2007), http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/ a6epa.html (viewed 17 April 2007).
7. Reportedly United States investors placed 262% more funds into green start-up projects in 2006 than in 2005. A total of US$2.4 billion was invested. See Eilperin J, "The Court's Green Light for Green Tech", Washington Post (8 April 2007).
8. Stevens J held that even though "a first step might be tentative [this] does not by itself support the notion that federal courts lack jurisdiction to determine whether that step conforms to law", Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 21.
9. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 2.
10. Note that the 1970 version of s 202(a)(1) used the phrase "which endangers the public health or welfare" rather than the more-protective "which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare". Congress amended s 202(a)(1) in 1977 to give its approval to the decision in Ethyl Corp v Environmental Protection Agency 541 F 2d 1 (1976) at 25 (en banc), which held that the Clean Air Act "and common sense ... demand regulatory action to prevent harm, even if the regulator is less than certain that harm is otherwise inevitable".
11. See Stevens J Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) at 3, footnote 7.
12. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 7.
13. In which the court held that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could not rely upon a general authority to regulate drugs as a basis for exercising authority over the tobacco industry, particularly given the significant economical impact of regulating tobacco. This case is referred to by Stevens J in Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) at 9.
14. For the summary of the Environmental Protection Agency's reasons see Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 7-9.
15. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 14-17.
16. Although the minority judgment of Roberts CJ did note some of the hazards or risks were long term and uncertain. See Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Roberts CJ at 8-10.
17. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 18-19.
18. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Roberts CJ at 7.
19. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 20.
20. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 21.
21. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 23.
22. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 23.
23. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 23.
24. Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 127 S Ct 1438 (2007) (No 05-1120) per Stevens J at 31.
25. This case was heard in October 2005 and the judgment handed down 15 June 2006. It is currently under appeal to the Queensland Supreme Court.
26. This was based upon the requirement under the Environment Protection Biodiversity Protection Act 1999 (Cth) to consider all adverse impacts in determining whether a proposed action is a controlled action under the Act.
27. Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch Inc v Minister for the Environment and Heritage [2006] FCA 736 at [10].
28. Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch Inc v Minister for the Environment and Heritage [2006] FCA 736 at [24].
29. Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch Inc v Minister for the Environment and Heritage [2006] FCA 736 at [43].
30. Re Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd [2007] QLRT 33.
31. Re Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd [2007] QLRT 33 at [12].
32. Re Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd [2007] QLRT 33 at [12].