Will Texas stop the EPA on CO2 regulations?

I hope so. The EPA's "finding" that carbon dioxide is a "hazardous" substance is unfounded because their basis for evidence in the Supreme Court trial was third-party misinformation. The EPA is required to do its own experiments to determine the safety of carbon dioxide. Texas has a good case. It will depend on the political backing it gets. It's too bad that our economy and our personal freedom and welfare has been turned over to the lawyers and politicians.

I doubt it. The case they present is rather mixed. That the EPA outsourced it's determination of a pollutant is an interesting legal issue but I do not believe it will be accepted by the EPA nor do I believe a court will uphold it. Even if they did, the EPA could easily conduct a review of the literature on CO2 and quickly come to the same conclusions as did the IPCC. There is simply no research that counters the IPCC conclusions. Texas then uses potential hardships to justify a reconsideration; regardless of any such value judgement the EPA might make, it is not in the EPA jurisdiction to decide that. The US Supreme Court ordered the EPA to decide whether CO2 is a pollutant; there is nothing in either the Court ruling or the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA to decide a pollutant can be ignored due to hardships.

The Clean Air Act is a Congressional act and Congress needs to make a decision here. Waxman-Markey has already passed that house and is waiting for the Senate to decide. We have all three branches of government acting here: the Judicial Branch has ruled that if the Legislative Branch does not act, then the Executive Branch must act. The Exective Branch, The EPA, is doing what it has been told to do.

It's the Senate's unwillingness to make a decision that is driving us closer to regulatory control over CO2. That's a very inefficient way to control CO2. Market systems work much better but require Congress to act.

Nope.

The science behind EPA's decision is solid. This happened because the Bush Administration tried to say that global warming was not real, and the Supreme Court told them that was ridiculous. EPA is simply complying with the Supreme Court decision, and that's something VERY unlikely to be reversed.

See Massachusetts v. EPA. And yes, the "skeptics" testified. The Court didn't buy it, as the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't buy it.

I hope so. The EPA is overstepping its boundaries and is acting above the law. Also, the EPA is ab sing its view on some contested evidence.

http://www.nationscrier.com/index.php?option=com_c...

Lobby as Texans may, no state has the power to stop policy of a federal agency such as the EPA.