1970 Clean Air Act was intended to cover carbon dioxide

Advertising and Public Perception of “Clean” Fuels

• Several commenters recall “clean gas” ads and clarify these almost certainly referred to natural gas (methane), not CO₂.
• Natural gas has long been marketed as “cleaner” than coal or diesel; examples from the 1980s–2010s are cited (e.g., “This bus runs on clean natural gas”).
• Methane’s chemistry (more hydrogen, less carbon per unit energy) means less CO₂ and more water when burned, but commenters note this framing downplays broader climate impacts and methane leakage.
• The exchange illustrates fallible memory and how marketing shapes public understanding of pollution.

Does the 1970 Clean Air Act Cover CO₂?

• Some argue Congress already empowered EPA via the 1970 Act: broad definitions of “air pollutant” and delegation to the EPA administrator mean CO₂ fits.
• Others counter the statute never explicitly mentioned CO₂ or greenhouse gases, and that intent is contested; the 2022 Supreme Court ruling narrowed how EPA can regulate power generation.
• Prior case law (e.g., the 2007 decision that greenhouse gases fit within the Act’s definition) and 2022 amendments explicitly referencing GHGs are noted.
• One legal contributor stresses the 2022 decision did not say EPA cannot regulate GHGs at all, only that it lacked authority for sweeping “generation shifting” under the specific section at issue.

Courts, Chevron, and the Major Questions Doctrine

• Overturning Chevron deference is seen by some as necessary to curb an expansive administrative state; agencies were issuing far more rules than Congress passes laws.
• Others view it as a “power grab” by the Court, replacing expert agency judgments with generalist judges and favoring business interests through the Major Questions Doctrine.
• Debate centers on whether ambiguity should default to agency discretion (with Congress correcting later) or to judicial skepticism until Congress is explicit.

Congressional Responsibility and Dysfunction

• One camp: if society wants CO₂ regulation, Congress must say so clearly; relying on agencies and courts is dangerous.
• Another camp: Congress is structurally and politically dysfunctional (budget brinkmanship, tiny number of substantive laws, gerrymandering, money in politics), so insisting on congressional fixes amounts to inaction.

Industry Influence and Regulatory Capture

• Multiple comments note heavy fossil-fuel lobbying, ownership of fossil stocks by many members of Congress, and post–Citizens United spending via Super PACs.
• Some argue handing power to Congress just strengthens industries that have “bought” key legislators; others reply that all branches and agencies are susceptible to capture, so this argument doesn’t uniquely justify empowering any one branch.

Supreme Court Power, Legitimacy, and Ethics

• Commenters dispute whether Court decisions are primarily legal or political.
• Examples of reversals over short periods (e.g., flag-salute cases) illustrate that outcomes track personnel changes more than constitutional text.
• Recent ethics controversies and perceived ideological alignment with conservative policy goals fuel skepticism that doctrines like Major Questions are neutral.

Climate Policy vs Legal Process

• Some express frustration that while climate risks mount, debates fixate on statutory interpretation rather than concrete emissions cuts.
• Others insist that process (separation of powers, limits on delegation) must be respected even for urgent problems; otherwise tools created for “good” causes can later entrench harmful policies.