A federal court has just put an end to a key piece of Obama’s climate change rebellion.
This ruling notes that the Environmental Protection Agency violated an authority privilege, used to forbid the application of refrigerants in air conditioners.
As it turns out, these refrigerants were related to the increased global warming occurrence.
The EPA’s ban “relied on a statute that regulated use of ozone-depleting substances, but the refrigerants — called hydrofluorocarbons — don’t damage the ozone layer,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh noted.
The panel consisted of three judges all of whom reached a unanimous decision that HFCs aren’t “ozone-depleting substances,” thus the EPA is unable to act in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
“Indeed, before 2015, EPA itself maintained that Section 612 did not grant authority to require replacement of nonozone-depleting substances such as HFCs,” the court explained.
“EPA’s novel reading of Section 612 is inconsistent with the statute as written. Section 612 does not require (or give EPA authority to require) manufacturers to replace non-ozone-depleting substances such as HFCs,” Kavanaugh pointed out.
Obama and his Cabinet used 1987 Montreal Protocol to enforce this practice until now, which provided prevention of ozone layer damaging by eradicating other chemicals.
Stephen Yurek, President and CEO of the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, said the following on the matter:
“This ruling has significant implications for our industry and we will be monitoring the EPA’s response closely,” Yurek said.
“Despite the court’s decision, our industry remains committed to ratification and implementation of the Kigali Amendment to globally phase down the use of HFC refrigerants,” Yurek stated.
The 2016 Kigali agreement provided that America and other countries consented to diminish the number HFCs used at the moment, and will focus on discovering substitute chemicals.
Trump was not very supportive of the entire idea, but this specific piece sat well with him and his Office.
Once asked how the matter is progressing and whether Tuesday’s ruling made a difference, an EPA representative noted the agency is currently “reviewing the decision.”