Michael Barbaro

This EPA is arguing that the Clean Air Act

only allows EPA to regulate what it calls local and regional pollutants.

Things like soot from industrial sources, factories, power plants, stuff that's really bad when you breathe it in.

Greenhouse gas emissions don't work that way.

Carbon dioxide, methane, you know, all these gases, they disperse into the atmosphere.

They trap heat.

They linger from decades to centuries and alter the climate.

So this EPA is making the argument that it just does not have the legal authority to deal with those kinds of, let's call them global pollutants.

Interesting.

So their argument is that the endangerment finding misunderstands the Clean Air Act and thinks that you can regulate greenhouse gases that by definition are not local.

They end up in the sky.

They end up far from their original source.

And therefore, the endangerment finding is not legally sound.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Do lawyers agree with that argument?

They're mixed.

I mean, there are some conservative lawyers who think that the EPA has a really good case to make.

You know, environmental attorneys that we've spoken to have said that the George W. Bush administration made similar arguments to defend its decision not to issue an endangerment finding and lost.

But there's another argument that's linked.