Welcome to Cato Daily Podcast

Daily Podcast. Today is Monday, April 9th. This is your host Anastasia Yglova.

Last Monday the Supreme Court's close five 9th, this is your host Anastasia Yglova.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court's close 5-4 ruling that the federal government had the authority

to regulate greenhouse gases that may contribute to global warming was big news on the

environmental front, followed closely by the release of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change study this past Friday.

Considerable changes in environmental regulation are likely afoot. Cato's senior fellow in environmental studies, Pat Michael's, offers his thoughts.

You read the decision of the court in Massachusetts v. EPA, so what did you think?

The EPA initially claimed that it did not have the statutory authority to regulate carbon

dioxide, the main global warming gas and the court has held otherwise.

That in fact it does.

So what this means is we can look forward down the road to some emissions regulations

on CO2 being issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.

So how do you expect EPA policy to change?

You don't think they're going to try to reason their way out of regulating CO2?

EPA is going to have a very hard time reasoning its way out of regulation of CO2 because the majority

decision holds this.

Quote, the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized."

The court has made a scientific statement there.

It is, I think, quite debatable, but that is what the majority has held.

So if EPA tries to claim that climate change is not sufficient

...