Not exact matches
In the case of the U.S., our own Supreme Court has already defined greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act as
dangerous pollutants that must be
regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
From where you stand, does allowing the EPA to have the authority to
regulate GHG emissions as
dangerous pollutants constitute «moral absolutism?»
kevin (162), «allowing the EPA to have the authority to
regulate GHG emissions as
dangerous pollutants constitute [s] «moral absolutism?»
Furthermore (although I have no idea of whether Spencer was aware of it at the time of writing) Barack Obama has said that absent meaningful legislation on emissions within the first 18 months of inauguration, should he win he will allow the EPA to have the authority to
regulate GHG emissions as
dangerous pollutants.
I suppose one could argue that it would be better to have a new statute that provides one comprehensive approach to
regulating all of the
dangerous pollutants that emanate from power plants.
(Marketwire — 12/09/09) As world leaders began talks on climate change at the United Nations Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long - awaited finding declaring carbon dioxide (CO2) a
dangerous pollutant that must be
regulated.