“The US supreme court yesterday issued a landmark ruling in favour of environmentalists and against George Bush’s stance on global warming. The court judged that the federal Environmental Protection Agency had the power through a clean air law to restrict exhaust emissions, and told the agency to re-examine the issue.
“The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups frustrated with the Bush administration’s lack of action. Individual states, led by California, have been imposing regulations of their own. Car makers, public utilities, and others responsible for carbon dioxide emissions opposed the lawsuit.
“The court found that the scientific evidence shows that global warming is not some future threat, but is already having serious impacts in the United States. This will be a huge turning point in federal policy. The administration massively overreached in refusing to cut global warming pollution from cars when the Clean Air Act explicitly requires it to act…
Read the article ‘US supreme court overrules Bush’s refusal to restrict C02’ by Ewen MacAskill in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2048760,00.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A Changing Climate of Litigation
Frustrated by perceived federal reticence to act on the growing scientific evidence of climate change, state governments and environmentalists are increasingly turning their attention to the courts. Broad consensus has developed about the reality and seriousness of global warming, but neither the Bush administration nor Congress has yet responded with meaningful action. The result is a situation that is ripe for litigation. Plaintiffs have emerged, suing corporations on the grounds that their greenhouse gas emissions are causing undue harm and suing governments for failing to regulate the corporations. In addition, industry has responded with countersuits of its own.
To date, plaintiffs in climate change lawsuits haven’t scored any big victories, and prospects for the future are unclear. In fact, even its strongest supporters admit that litigation, by its nature, provides a piecemeal approach to dealing with a problem that should be addressed broadly by the legislative branch. “I’m the first person to say this is not a very effective means of addressing the problem,” says Sierra Club senior attorney David Bookbinder, who has been on several plaintiff legal teams involving global warming. “But it’s the only one we’ve got.”
However, there’s also a belief by its adherents that litigation can ultimately play a key role in shaping broader public policy. Australian lawyer Joseph Smith, a researcher at the University of Adelaide, has been studying the emergence of climate change litigation in the United States, Australia, and elsewhere in the world, and he thinks it may follow a pattern similar to those of tobacco, asbestos, and other “toxic tort” categories, in which personal injury is caused by exposure to a hazardous agent. “There’s a period where there’s an accumulation of scientific evidence, yet the cases don’t succeed,” he says. “But then the gradual accumulation becomes overwhelming, consensus changes, and the law follows. I don’t think this is going to go away.”
Supreme Court in the Spotlight
To a large extent, the future of climate change litigation—in the United States, at least—now rests in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. In November 2006, justices heard lawyers argue Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., the first climate change case that the nation’s top court has heard. In that case, Massachusetts, along with 11 other states and several cities and nonprofit organizations, sued the EPA in an effort to compel it to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Then–EPA general counsel Robert E. Fabricant had concluded in an 8 September 2003 memorandum that the agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate any greenhouse gases under the act—and that furthermore, even if it did have the authority it would choose not to exercise it.
The EPA’s stance that it lacks the authority to control any greenhouse gases means that the outcome of Massachusetts v. EPA will apparently affect stationary sources as well as motorized vehicles. Justices will be issuing their opinion—or opinions—by June 2007. And nobody’s making any predictions about how it might turn out. At the oral argument, the justices focused much of their attention on the issue of “standing,” which refers to the requirement that plaintiffs show they have suffered an injury that is traceable to the defendant’s action.
The justices’ focus on standing is an illustration of the difficulties that plaintiffs have in making winnable legal arguments in climate change cases. Washington, DC, lawyer Russell S. Frye represents the CO2 Litigation Group, an umbrella of several business trade associations that supports the EPA in the case. He says that pinning the blame in climate change cases is difficult to do. “When you’re talking about how the United States in particular ought to respond to a concern that’s raised by emissions and developments throughout the world and not just the United States, it’s hard for individual states or environmental groups to show that the relief they’re seeking will redress their injury,” he says.
That is, Frye says, climate change is caused by an atmospheric layer to which the entire world is contributing. If a defendant is forced to reduce emissions, the harm will be reduced only slightly. “Everyone is saying this is a really serious problem that needs action, and yet the action they’re taking, even if successful, would only impact a small percentage of carbon dioxide emissions,” he says.
Furthermore, he says, climate change plaintiffs “are raising questions that are not for the court to resolve. Certainly, I don’t think the founding fathers thought that the judicial branch was where policies like this should be made.”
But plaintiffs’ lawyers in these cases say they’ve brought the actions because they were the only available alternative. “We started these cases in the darkest days of the Bush administration’s rejection of doing anything,” says David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center. “We’re pursuing the litigation for the simple reason that you pursue all avenues.”
In fact, climate change litigation may be more widespread than most people realize. Last fall, Georgetown University Law Center fellow Justin R. Pidot surveyed the existing litigation in the United States and found that Massachusetts v. EPA was one of 16 pending lawsuits involving climate change. He found the suits evenly distributed among four basic categories: 1) Clean Air Act suits, such as Massachusetts v. EPA; 2) National Environmental Policy Act suits, which claim that government agencies must include the consequences of climate change when they measure the environmental impacts of projects they fund or license (these lawsuits have been the most successful); 3) preemption suits, brought by industry plaintiffs against states such as California with tougher emissions standards than the federal ones; and 4) nuisance suits,which contend that contributors to climate change are creating a common-law nuisance.
A Battleground in California
All eyes in the world of climate change litigation are on the U.S. Supreme Court, but a great many of them are also on California, where attorney general Jerry Brown and six auto manufacturers are waging a legal war that’s attracted international attention. The federal Clean Air Act includes a provision that allows California to set its own carbon dioxide emission standards for motor vehicles and also allows other states to adopt California’s standards if they wish. In 2004, California lawmakers decided to proceed on setting the state’s own standards with a requirement that automakers begin reducing emissions starting in 2009, and 10 states have lined up to follow them. The automakers objected, arguing that the California law is preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which created the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. They filed suit in 2005 (Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon).
Then–attorney general Bill Lockyear responded in September 2006 by filing a suit against the automakers (California v. General Motors) on the theory that they have created a public nuisance with the greenhouse gas emissions that their products create in California. Brown, who was elected in fall 2006, has pledged to carry on the fight.
There has been one other large-scale climate change nuisance suit, Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company, Inc. The plaintiffs in this case—eight states, the city of New York, and three land trusts—were not successful. They sought an injunction to stop the five biggest U.S. carbon dioxide emitters (American Electric Power Company, Southern Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy, and Cinergy Corporation) from conducting business as usual. Together, these emitters send about 650 million tons of the gas into the atmosphere each year.
The plaintiffs asked a federal court in New York to issue an abatement order to reduce the emissions. However, a judge dismissed the case in 2005, saying that public policy about greenhouse gas emissions was a “political question” that needed to be answered legislatively. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case has been fully briefed and argued, and an outcome is pending.
Ken Alex, supervising deputy attorney general in the California Attorney General’s environmental section, believes that the California nuisance suit is different, however, because it seeks damages from the automakers. “The types of damages include things like the millions of dollars the state is spending to address the impacts of global warming,” he says. “There are concrete impacts already. For instance, our flood control system was built with the idea that it control five-hundred-year flood events, but now those flood events are more like fifty-year events because of the earlier and more substantial snow runoff in the Sierras. The value of the flood control system has taken an economic hit, and it needs to be rebuilt.”
But Theodore J. Boutrous, the Los Angeles–based lawyer for the automakers, counters that Brown’s office is out of its league in trying to impose itself on his clients. “These global warming issues are complex, delicate, political, scientific issues that need to be resolved in a comprehensive, careful way through the political process as opposed to [in the] courts, which decide things on an ad hoc basis that doesn’t allow for the kind of analysis that is required in this area,” he says. Furthermore, he also questions the firmness of the state’s legal ground in seeking to collect damages for auto emissions when the state operates a huge fleet of vehicles that itself is contributing to the problem. (California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged in 2004 to gradually replace the state’s fleet, currently numbered at 37,000 vehicles, with hydrogen-powered vehicles.)
The outcome in both California cases—as well as in other climate change lawsuits—depends on how the Supreme Court rules. A plaintiff victory presumably would eliminate the nuisance suit against the auto manufacturers as well as the pending suit in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. But as Bookbinder points out, a resounding loss may not actually be a bad thing. “If we lose everything, then it’s up to Congress—and I can live with that,” he says. “Pressure is mounting for them to address this issue.”
The Global Perspective
Elsewhere around the world, there also have been developments in climate change litigation. Smith and a University of Adelaide colleague, physician David Shearman, recently co-authored a book, Climate Change Litigation, that examines the issue in more of a worldwide perspective, although they focus on the United States and Australia for examples. Shearman is a longtime member of the volunteer group Doctors for the Environment, Australia, and a contributor to the health sections of the 2001 and 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, while Smith applied legal analyses to examine the kinds of legal responses that hold promise.
To Shearman, the key to making effective legal arguments about global warming rests in the scientific data about the health effects. As an example, he cites the 2003 European heat wave, which resulted in an estimated 22,000 to 45,000 “excessive deaths” (the number above the normal death totals for the period). That kind of heat is supposed to happen every 50 to 100 years in Europe, he says, but “according to the probabilities of climate change, by 2050 such a heat wave will occur every fourth year in France.”
Smith and Shearman say Australia is similar to the United States at the moment—both are countries with conservative national governments that are loath to regulate industry. But Smith points out that even in Australia there’s been progress. In November 2006, the New South Wales Land and Mining Court handed down a decision in Gray v. The Minister for Planning and ORS that requires that government agencies now consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions involved in all new building projects and land development.
Around the world, Smith says there have been successful lawsuits against U.S. companies using human rights arguments against a nation that currently emits the most greenhouse gases per capita but that is not a Kyoto Protocol signatory. Most recently, in March 2007, representatives of the indigenous Inuit people argued before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the United States is violating their rights by causing climate change that threatens their traditional way of life—melting sea ice upon which their villages are built and threatening species upon which they depend for survival. In Europe, meanwhile, the European Union has created a court to hear cases against member states if they don’t comply with EU emission standards.
Environmentalists and lawyers who have studied climate change litigation agree that the ideal venue for change would be some kind of world court. Smith says that even the Kyoto Protocol lacks an international judicial forum. He says he has done extensive research on the role that international law might play in reducing global warming, “and it comes to a dead end. It seems that, in the end, it needs to be national laws to get things done.”
“In a nutshell,” Smith concludes, “each discipline and field can make a contribution. But none of them is sufficient on its own to really carry the weight. It’s got to be everyone working together at both the individual and international levels to deal with it. There’s no one solution.”
Richard Dah
Now I wonder how many of those who squeaked outrage at an Australian court’s intrusion into science here;
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1849776.htm
will have the same view of the US Court ( keeping in mind that the criticisms of the US judicial process raised recently by so many on the left in respect of David Hicks ) ??
Or will we see the usual re-orientation of principle to suit?
Don’t have time to go through it right now – but here’s the opinions
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
cheers
Arnost
The concern with Hicks was not the US judicial process, but the concerted effort to keep it out of any recognised judicial process.
It was amusing to see the uproar from the prosecution at the political interference behind the scenes with his sentencing. Wasn’t that the whole point of the military commission? To let the President run the whole thing?
Plenty there to debate SJT but Jen ( stern taskmistress that she is ) won’t let us go off topic!
it was great to immediately hear the protests from within the whitehouse akin to “but we are already advocating cleaner, more efficient vehicles and biofuels programs” etc
kind of reminded me of john-denial-howards ‘we say what he says’ with regards to stern or the other corker ‘we’re meeting our kyoto target (that incidentally we dont believe in anyway)’
Julian,
Don’t know that Howard agrees with much Stern says….
But don’t actions count for more than words ( written or spoken)??
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SYD174762.htm
I am thinking that the Supreme Court ruling may be as unenforcable as that made by Antonio, any “global” claim may beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
However, it seems likely that sufficient nuisance claims will make for a more authoritarian govt, one that rules by regulation.
Jim:
only when it suits him, and only if it appears to make him look less than idle on the issue – ie stern believing that nuclear energy potentially being part of the solution (though for howard, its the be all and end all).
we all heard the backflip as soon as stern was out of ear shot too – his doom-mongering about how actually doing anything to combat climate change will send australia into a dickensian haze of gruel and water subsidence.
The EU regulates the average CO2 emissions from cars in g/km, currently voluntary. The average is in the UK currently around 165g/km. By 2012 car manufacturers have a binding target of 130g/km for new cars – the original 120g/km was regarded as being unachievable. I doubt 130g/km will be possible for the likes of Porsche.
“I am thinking that the Supreme Court ruling may be as unenforcable as that made by Antonio, any “global” claim may beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” Rog @ 05:03 PM
Rog, the ruling makes no claim about global warming:
“Justice Stevens’ says his position “involves no judgement on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem”.”
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/
Justice Stephens’ = Justice Stephens. Sorry.
I have been following the court case since the beginning, and the early attempts by the CEI to derail it by an astro-turfing campaign, and pretty dumb advertising:
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2006/11/carbon-dioxide-in-dock.html
“global” is a legal term and means widespread.
A couple of immediate observations,
First the bad news. In the US of A, CO2 is now legally a “pollutant”.
Some excerpts from the opinion:
QUOTE”… carbon dioxide … is therefore a species — the most important species — of a “greenhouse gas.”…ENDQUOTE
QUOTE”…greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,”…”ENDQUOTE
This I think is based on the definition of air pollution in the court opinion.
QUOTE”…The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . . .” §7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whateverstripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.”25 Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical . . . substance[s] which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous. …”ENDQUOTE
The problem with this precedent is that lower and even appellate courts in the US now have no alternative but to follow this interpretation. Google “Stare decisis”. Note: In Australian case law, if there is no local precedent to rely on, though it is not binding, a SCOTUS decision is a precedent that can be used to justify a decision.
In the dissent J. Scallia has a good argument that for CO2 to be covered by the Clean Air Act is has to be accepted as an “air pollutant”:
QUOTE”…In order to be an “air pollutant” under the Act’s definition, the “substance or matter [being] emitted into . . . the ambient air” must also meet the first half of the definition—namely, it must be an “air pollution agent or combination of such agents.” …”ENDQUOTE
This I think misses a potentially key argument in that CO2 cannot be an “air pollutant” BECAUSE it is (an integral part of) AIR.
By classifying CO2 as a pollutant, the SCOTUS opens up an entire new class of litigation by activists. The “science” is now settled; the Supreme Court said so. If I was a lawyer, I would be seeing $$$$ right now. Did you know that CO2 levels in most office environments can be more than 2200 ppm? Pollution rampant – that’s 6X more than the already unacceptably polluted air!
There is some potentially good news.
Some excerpts from the opinion:
QUOTE”…We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. …”ENDQUOTE
QUOTE”…Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. …”ENDQUOTE
QUOTE”…If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so. …”ENDQUOTE
What I believe the outcome of this is that the SCOTUS has forced the EPA to provide SUBSTANTIVE reasons whenever is chooses NOT to act when AGW related petitions for rulemaking are filed.
Given that (until a Democrat – and esp. Gore – becomes president) the EPA is not likely to enforce a regulation as per the Massachusetts petition, then they are bound by the court’s decision to establish a case for scientific uncertainty vis-a-vis AGW.
This means that it will have to provide “science” to support it’s decision not to act. As the EPA is subject to the DATA QUALITY ACT this will also open the all the existing “science” to independent review.
This will be interesting if it indeed occurs.
cheers
Arnost
Back in the real world, in an effort to appease the anti nuclear crowd in Germany whilst stimulating the economy the govt has approved a plan to build 26 new coal-fired power stations by 2020.
Last week Ian Macfaflane and Malcolm Turnbull hosted the inugeral Geothermal Industry Roundtable to work out the developement framework for the industry.
$20 million plus of federal money has been used to seed the industry since 2000. (SMH business section 4/4/07)
The Howard Govt has more than one iron in the fire re future base load power generation and has had for a long time.
Arnost is completely right and spot-on. Did I miss using another phrase for “accurate?”
Thing is, legislatures and courts aren’t renowned for their scientific expertise, but even so, who could have imagined that a gas comprising 0.05 percent of the atmosphere, of which humans contribute 0.04 of that 0.05, would be worth legislation?
Especially considering that humans have been burning things for millennia and it all seemed, well, like a natural, normal thing to do.
What most commentators don’t realize is that most members of the US Supreme Court were hired to interpret the law *literally* and the Court is simply throwing the case back.
Or, like a finicky patron of a restaurant, sending a steak back to the kitchen.
The US Supreme Court is not a scientific body, and despite a courageous dissenting opinion, the case goes back to –egads– politicians and bureaucrats.
Many will applaud the notion that politicians and bureaucrats should make scientific decisions, but I have the suspicion that they’re not qualified.
While you, my friends and enemies, contemplate that, contemplate this:
http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2007/03/28/be-afraid.php
The Prague Post, March 28th, 2007
Be afraid
But not of global warming — the Greens are out to get us
“As someone who lived under communism for most of my life, I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection — similarly to the old Marxists — wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world.”
Fundamentalist Green philosophy = capital growth is destroying the earth = economic growth is bad and must be constrained if not stopped.
Capital is the means by which improvements are made, a wealthy country does not have open sewers, open cooking fires and is not subject to famine.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Americas_Targeted_By_Global_Warming_From_North_To_South_999.html
Terra Daily
Americas Targeted By Global Warming From North To South
“Some regions of north America — especially the northernmost reaches of Canada and Alaska — will likewise be severely challenged. But overall the continent is less vulnerable than others, because it has the resources and skills to adapt more easily than poorer counterparts.”
Wow. So CO2-driven technology might overcome catastrophic global warming.
And I have to add this for Luke’s benefit, since we were talking about the climate impact of barbies:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070403/62999935.html
Belgium to impose tax on barbequing to fight global warming
12:27 | 03/ 04/ 2007
Print version
BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) – The government of Belgium’s French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.
Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.
So there you have it!
Shrimps on the barbie? A$60, mate, and that’s before you get the shrimps!
Now if John were a yank he’d stack the agency. Oh well we can still teach them a thing or two.
fluff
“Thing is, legislatures and courts aren’t renowned for their scientific expertise, but even so, who could have imagined that a gas comprising 0.05 percent of the atmosphere, of which humans contribute 0.04 of that 0.05, would be worth legislation?”
Appeals to ignorance, again. The same old horse with the painted on leer, coming around again.
The Azaria Chamberlain case is one clear example where the courts stuffed up – the judgement was based on faulty science.
“Appeals to ignorance?”
Rog
the science behind the Azaria Chamberlain conviction was due to the court believing one scientist who screwed up.
The science behind AGW has been gone over again, and again, and again. Each time, it comes up correct.
“Thing is, legislatures and courts aren’t renowned for their scientific expertise, but even so, who could have imagined that a gas comprising 0.05 percent of the atmosphere, of which humans contribute 0.04 of that 0.05, would be worth legislation?”
The judgement says that the EPA has to investigate the issue, no more, no less, because scientists have found CO2, in excess, may act as a pollutant.
We hear once again, the same ignorant refrain, that because the amount of something may be small, it can be ignored. The reason it must be considered is because of the effect. The only reason to ignore it is not because of the concentration, but whether or not the effect of that concentration is significant or not.
“The US Supreme Court is not a scientific body, and despite a courageous dissenting opinion, the case goes back to –egads– politicians and bureaucrats.
Many will applaud the notion that politicians and bureaucrats should make scientific decisions, but I have the suspicion that they’re not qualified. ”
The EPA employs scientists. Duh.
The job of the EPA is to employ scientist to make findings in respect of the population of the USA and the environment.
The judgement just said that so far, the EPA HAS MADE NO FINDING, MAKE ONE!
The court itself has made no actual finding on global warming and CO2 beyond wondering why the issue has been ignored, when credible evidence appears to exist that it is an issue.
What is wrong with that?
If the EPA is to make no findings in regard to human actions on the environment, then why is it there? The theory of AGW has at least a powerful claim to being valid, as it there is a lot of scientific evidence to back the claims.
The judgement is entirely valid. The EPA has to at least make a decision.
Oh, so there’s a “consensus” of five from a left-wing majority U.S. Supreme Court. I guess that’s the end of not only the scientific debate but the legal debate. Wait, I checked my household and the consensus here is that AGW is exaggerated and that the U.S. Supreme Court has a majority of idiots. There’s hope yet.
Woody
there is no ‘consensus’, they just told the EPA to do it’s job.
SJT, the liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court let their agendas dictate their rulings–not the law nor the facts. They didn’t tell the EPA to do its job. They told the EPA to take on a job never intended by the original legislation.
CO2 is not a pollutant as intended by the people who passed the original legislation, but the definition was conveniently expanded. This will open the door to forcing a lot of people out of jobs and costing our economy a lot to accomplish nothing.
The Supreme Court should stick to doing its job of interpreting the Constitution rather than trying to legislate.
Now, everyone against CO2 emissions should stop exhaling.
In a nutshell, the court “compels the EPA to both make a decision and explain the logic behind it.”
In other words, they have sent the regulation back to the EPA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
“Air pollution is a chemical, physical (e.g. particulate matter), or biological agent that modifies the natural characteristics of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a complex, dynamic natural gaseous system that is essential to support life on planet Earth. Stratospheric ozone depletion due to air pollution has long been recognized as a threat to human health as well as to the Earth’s ecosystems.”
Something can be naturally occuring, like CO2, and a pollutant, if it’s quantity exceeds the ability of the natural system to handle it, and it changes the functioning of that eco-system.
Ozone is another example, it is essential for keeping us free from skin cancer, at the right place in the eco-system, but bad for us to breathe in.
The EPA has the scientists to determine what should be done about CO2, not the court.
Was CO2 considered a pollutant to be controlled by the EPA in 1970, when Nixon created it? No, the EPA was formed to deal with smoke and water pollution from industry and autos–not global warming (oh, it was a new ice age back then.)
As usual, big government seizes authority from states and expands its role–thus, protecting jobs of government employees and elevating the jobs of managers. The government never solves anything, because to do so would mean that it would have to close a division. Given the nature of government, the EPA will be forced to give in to the church of global warming.
Woody
CO2 was not considered a pollutant back then because the effects of enhanced global warming were not known then. It’s not a matter government socialist conspiracies and corruption, it’s a simple matter of science discovering something.
It’s really a matter of whether the IPCC is right or not, which is what the court has decided should happen, let the scientists sort it out.
SJT, the EPA was created to keep America’s air and water clean. This goes beyone that, no matter what the truth about AGW. I don’t have time to read the entire opinion and dissenting opinions, but I suspect that Justice Scalia made the most sense in his conclusions.
Why do you keep your air and water clean? Because it protects your environment. Excess CO2 is damaging the environment.
Does air and water need to be protected from being polluted by CO2?
Is this a legal argument? Air and water don’t need protection, they are inanimate molecules. The environment needs protection, and it includes us.
It’s one thing to say that particulates in the air are causing breathing problems and that mercury dumped in the water harms fish. Those are direct and proven causes and effects. Global warming is indirect and is not proven and is not a singular American issue. The EPA doesn’t need to be involved in international problems and treaties. I can’t believe that you can’t see how the Court is stretching the interpretation and expanding the unintended authority of the EPA. Let the legislature handle that.
Does the act discriminate between primary and feedback effects? If it’s an effect, why does one have to distinguish between the mechanisms of it’s cause?
Air pollution was never a singular American issue, it was also a global one, that every industrialised country had to deal with.
AGW is proven, they just have to ask their own peak scientific bodies.