Jaffe, Jill2019-09-252019-09-252010-11-01201000461121http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/175839"In American Farm Bureau v. Environmental Protection Agency (Am. Farm), the court held that the EPA may not disregard findings based on insufficient evidence without adequate reasoning. Thus, the court in Am. Farm upheld the principle that while science may only provide imperfect and limited information, the EPA may not justify lack of action with such uncertainty if there are logical or qualitative means to set standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Establishing regulations for greenhouse gases under the CAA will push the EPA into uncomfortable territory because it will be required to set standards despite inherent uncertainties regarding the impacts of climate change on human health and welfare. The EPA has not yet established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for greenhouse gasses under the CAA. However, once NAAQS for greenhouse gases are set, the principles enumerated by the court in Am. Farm should guide courts when reviewing the regulation of greenhouse gases under the CAA in light of scientific uncertainty." (p. 1)engWith permission of the license/copyright holderairgreenhouse effectclimate ethicsemissionslawPolitical ethicsEnvironmental ethicsEthics of lawRights based legal ethicsResources ethicsArticle