The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments today for perhaps the most important environmental case in years. At issue: whether the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate carbon dioxide as a global warming pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Twelve states and environmental groups say yes, pointing to the law’s language that the EPA shall regulate any pollutant from motor vehicles that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
If the high court agrees, it could mean sweeping changes for the nation’s energy policy and new restrictions on greenhouse emissions from cars and coal-fired power plants.
Too bad it takes a lawsuit to force this administration to acknowledge the scientific consensus and enforce the law.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- biased1 on Sebelius takes on Hurricane Sarah
- lindainks55 on Open thread 9/5
- CF2K on Sebelius takes on Hurricane Sarah
- Franklin on Palin a late-summer dream for late-night comics
- Raptor on Sebelius takes on Hurricane Sarah
- BlueJay on Sebelius takes on Hurricane Sarah
- Franklin on Sebelius takes on Hurricane Sarah
- beber on Open thread 9/5
- lindainks55 on Open thread 9/5
- RFL on Sebelius takes on Hurricane Sarah
56 Comments
Solution is to regulate humans by having them not breathe out that nasty carbon dioxide unless they are standing in newly plantred forests of trees, while fanning themselves with a non CFC hand fan, eating cheese from a non-flatulent cow-sheep-goat and using their Flinstone car to get them to work.
Scholfield fails to mention that while 12 states say yes on this another 10 states side with this administration. Are we to assume that the other 28 states think all of this is a waste of time?As JM noted above, where does breathing fit into this?Extreme enviromentalists = anti-capitalists
This case, as interesting as it is, is all about statutory construction. The issue before the court is whether, under NEPA, carbon dioxide is a pollutant, subject to regulation by the EPA?
It’s been a while since I looked at NEPA, but it is my recollection that the definition of a pollutant therein would not cover CO2. It is my understanding that the plaintiffs’ argument is essentially that CO2 being produced by industrial processes is not the “natural” CO2 contemplated by the statute, but is instead an artificial agent, falling within the general definition of pollutant. The defendants’ argument is the act doesn’t cover CO2, thus EPA has no power to regulate.
The obvious answer to the central issue is that the law needs amendment to specifically include CO2 production within EPA’s regulatory authority. This, in fact, may be the response from the Supremes, although personally, I believe regulation of so-called “Greenhouse gases” is highly critical to overall environmental quality. It will be interesting to follow the case through decision.
Earth vs capitalism?
I’ll take Earth everytime!
Unregulated capitalism = death to children
If you don’t believe it, just look at how Big Oil forced the US government to keep lead in gasoline decades after the health risks were overwhelmingly obvious.
So let’s do nothing for the environment and see how long THAT lasts.
For all you anti-environmentalists, why is it that you want smoking banned in public places (next it’ll be banned outdoors), yet car emissions, coal plant emissions, and all the rest are okay with you? I think there’s a word for that…
Oops: the case is under the “Clean Air Act”, not NEPA; my bad there; however, the analysis remains the same.
In “An Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore once again predicts that the earth will die in 10 years unless we change everything we are doing. His first prediction has already been proved false when you look at the non number of hurricaines in 2006. He had predicted a record year. Many very respectable scientist share an opinion that we are not destroying the air and they give scientific evidence to dispute the greenhouse effect. We don’t hear from them because it is not a popular opinion and the media try to silence them. I agree with envioronmentalists on protecting and keeping clean water. Clear cutting timber on a limited basis and replanting immediately. The rest of it is a political tool used by one party or the other and I refuse to walk silently in any line while being used as a pawn in this game.
It is a legitimate debate and should be addressed but the rush to judgement such as happened with the Kyoto Treaty does nothing to find a solution. China is the biggest polluter in the world and this would not have effected them. They have a goal of becoming the largest industrial nation on earth and are nearing that goal. By putting more restrictions on our own manufacturers that are unwarranted you will put several of them out of business. Allowing China to pollute and only control emissions from the US is like a restaurant with a smoking and no-smoking area. The air isn’t clear anywhere in the room.
Ksgrm–
“Gore said the earth will die in 10 years.”
No he didn’t. He said we had perhaps 10 years to avoid catastrophic global warming if we did something about it.
The earth will not die. A lot of people will die because of more severe weather, inundation from rising sea levels, and concurrent disease etc of massive numbers of refugees.
The earth will always be here and life will always be on it.
It just may not be human life.
I’ll bet you didn’t even see the movie.
I know Al Gore’s ranting is highly believable by some but I challenge you to look at the link enclosed in my posting.
“More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition calling into doubt global warming alarmism [http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm. Significantly, many of the scientists are specialists in climatology.
“There is still much to learn about the Earth’s climate system. Only partisans, blind alarmists, and scientists more interested in research dollars than dissemination of the truth believe ‘the debate is over.’ Indeed, to the extent the debate is over, it is because initial alarmist predictions have been completely debunked.
“The only current debate is over whether the moderate warming projected will marginally benefit or marginally harm mankind and the Earth’s ecosystems. The early indications are this moderate warming will benefit life on Earth, just as past global warming periods have.
You are right I didn’t see the movie but then I didn’t see “The Passion” either. I guess I am a moderate when it comes to propoganda.
Germie
I think offering commentary on a documentary you have not seem deonstrates that you are NOT in fact a moderate.
Good one JR. I saw no need to see this movie that was presented as a documentary when in fact it was a propaganda piece and according to the media reviews a very boring one at that. I like comedys and I save my money to see movies I really enjoy and can laugh at.
Of course you will ignore the facts that I cited. That is the way most liberals bury their heads in the sand and then start screaming that the sky is falling.
germie
I think we have put an end to the idea that you are a moderate. I say again. How can you judge something you have not seen? Whose word are you taking to make up your mind?
By the way? If we err on the side of caution as to climate change and the environment? Who loses? Big oil and big biz? Hey works for me!
Now if we do NOTHING who loses. Hmmm pretty much everybody.
Pull your head outta your ass grm. Think for yourself.
ksgrm
“His first prediction has already been proved false when you look at the non number of hurricaines in 2006.”
Gore only reported that scientific studies say that warmer oceans could create stronger hurricanes — nothing about the “numbers”.
El Nino and dry African winds shut down our hurricanes. But other regions had HUGE storms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005-06_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season
How about 185 mph winds (1 minute sustained) and 225 mph gusts! That’d “relocate” most homes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Monica“It is the strongest tropical cyclone (in terms of wind) ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.”
Six “super” typhoons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Pacific_typhoon_season
Ben Huie’s link to a super typhoon.http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/tracking/wp200624.html
Your OISM pettion is stinky 8-year old garbage.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petitionhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Coal Fired = Radioactivity
Over the past few decades, the American public has become increasingly wary of nuclear power because of concern about radiation releases from normal plant operations, plant accidents, and nuclear waste. Except for Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents, releases have been found to be almost undetectable in comparison with natural background radiation. Another concern has been the cost of producing electricity at nuclear plants. It has increased largely for two reasons: compliance with stringent government regulations that restrict releases of radioactive substances from nuclear facilities into the environment and construction delays as a result of public opposition.
Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred coal combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons. First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials–mainly, uranium and thorium.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
You all do realize they’re about to build new coal power plants in Kansas right?
Do you have any idea the impact that has on us, who are all downwind and down water from it?
Do you realize that this is going to be because COLORADO won’t allow them to be built in their state, but they’ll be beneficiaries of the output?
Yeah, I wanna SEE how many anti-smokers are going to be pro-this.
FAR more dangerous than me lighting up a smoke.
Hey Ksgrm, did you know that in Alaska and other cold climate areas, they’re having to relocate whole TOWNS AND CITIES because of the global warming? Today, yesterday and right now. It’s not a joke. What has to happen before you believe it?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/22/eveningnews/main1926055.shtml
Shishmaref gets its $180 million, it will move 10 miles across a lagoon and two more miles to higher ground inland. But the problem won’t be over. Scientists say there are 180 more villages that need to be moved or they’ll be lost as well.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2464739&page1&CMPOTC-RSSFeeds0312
LOL that’s ok, Grm can watch that wall of water coming for her and she can thank God that the rapture has come for her.
ksgrm,
“Of course you will ignore the facts that I cited.”
Like your: “China is the biggest polluter in the world…”?
CO2 emissions by regions, from U.S. DOE.—-30.3% - U.S.27.7% - Europe13.7% - Russia12.2% - All of Southeast Asia, India, AND China
BTW: China’s auto mpg requirements are higher than ours.
No chance; the court will rule idealogically, not constitutionally. Just another Bush legacy.
Cosmos not sure who or what your source was on China’s contribution to pollution but as you can see by this October 24, 2006 article on pollution the World Bank thinks that China owns 16 of the top spots worldwide.
Note: Linfen acts in the top ten as an example of highly polluted cities in China. In terms of air quality, the World Bank has been quoted as estimating that 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world were in China.http://www.citymayors.com/environment/world_pollution.html#Anchor-Linfen-23240
I still say that by choking out industries on our soil with restrictions that make it impossible to compete in a world market, we are sending jobs out of the country.
Maybe you can convince those big environmentalists Robert Jr and Teddy Kennedy to drop their opposition to a wind farm in Mass. They think it impedes their view. No pollution there.
Ok earlier I asked germie to tell us who it was who was making up her mind for her.
That last bit tells me.
Sweetie? When Rush or Hannity fart it is NOT gospel.
Moderate my ass.
Hey, we had an ice storm here in Wichita today, 11-29-06 - therefore there is no global warming. QED.
No hurricaines in 2006, further proof…
People, we are talking climate, not weather. Look up the terms, so you can tell the difference.
None are so blind, as those who WILL NOT see…
Steven Davis, one could argue that due to climate change (warming) caused the weather here this a.m.(an ice storm), instead of snow.
Of course, before the ice storm hit, this November was close to the record for warmth, the record being 2005. Did any of you notice how warm it was? Have you looked at your lawns?
ksgrm,
Hello?? The issue is CO2, GLOBAL pollution, and GLOBAL warming — not “city” pollution.
The U.S.’s 5% of the world’s population spews out 30% of the world’s CO2.
“choking out industries”??
Improving energy efficiency and switching to renewable resources will IMPROVE our economy.
For example, it takes an investment of only about $15 to save EACH barrel of oil, versus $50 (or maybe $100+ in the future) a barrel to buy it.
http://www.oilendgame.com/Abstract.html“A $180-billion investment over the next decade will yield $130-billion annual savings by 2025;revitalize the automotive, truck, aviation, and hydrocarbon industries;create a million jobs in both industrial and rural areas;rebalance trade;make the United States more secure, prosperous, equitable, and environmentally healthy;encourage other countries to get off oil too;and make the world more developed, fair, and peaceful.”—–
It’s cheaper to burn less fuel — bonus points are less CO2 and other pollutants.
Opposition to Cape Wind involves more than “view”.
He said it I didn’t: Direct quote from Robert Kennedy Jr.
Environmental lawyer Robert Kennedy, Jr., a key figure among those opposed to the project, also argues that the company has failed to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis from the standpoint of the locals. “The economic burden this project imposes on the Cape Cod community is enormous — the injury to marinas, the injury to beaches, the injury to property values.”
Gotta keep up those rich boy’s property values. Who has their head in the sand?
No hurricanes in 200^? Tell that to the people in the Phillipines who are staring at a Cat 5 right now. That, Steven is a LIE. Just because the US east coast was spared this year does not negate the 4 Cat 5’s (actually one should be a 6) that hit Phillipines; the several that hit Mexico, China, Ioke that took a grand tour of the Pacific before finally ending up in Alaska.
Is salt a pollutant in water? Depends - ocean or Equus beds? Same with CO2 - particularly EXCESS CO2.
Ksgrm
I will make you a deal. Actually, I’ll make it a challenge.
You pick any documentary you like. I’ll watch it. In turn? You watch Al Gore’s documentary. Fair?
I am not well versed in the Cape Cod issue. I am a big proponent of wind power as my posts on other threads prove. I have posted as to my concern for birds. Clearly a shoreline on the ocean would need consideration before placing turbines there. And I think I’ll trust Robert Kennedy thank you.
Who do you trust?
Well I don’t trust a man who tells me I can’t drive an SUV and then flies everywhere he goes on a private jet. Who do you think is using the most fossil fuels? I am a moderate on several things but on this issue I don’t like to see people tell me what I should or shouldn’t do and then do whatever they please.
ksgrm - I cannot really address your complaint directly. I am only a professional scientist, not a policy maker. And I have never been in a privaye jet.
A climatologist’s review of Gore’s movie:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp
http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/tracking/wp200624.html
Super Typhoon (=hurricane) Durian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ioke
Super Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke - lots of records broken.
I really am still out on the climate change phenom. I do know from what research I have done that there have been climate changes for centuries. I’m not sure from the sources I read - some for some against - what my final opinion will be. I think that several people on this post call names instead of looking at both sides of issues. Just trying to challenge them to think. There is no party which has all of the good guys or one that has all of the bad guys.
ksgrm - there has been change for billions of years - not just centuries. We know that. We have learned a lot about Milankovitch cycles and about mechanisms of change. Especially abour feedback loops incolving ice/albedo and CO2 feedbacks. I have probably done a bit more study over the past several years than many - that is why I recommend the sites I linked above - they are not political nor energy industry related. Then follow links from them. There is a wealth of serious climatological research out there. The problem with it is that it tends to be rather dry reading. Most of those studies are not presented in a manner conducive to sound bites.
Perhaps WSU will offer their paleoclimatology course again. If they do I suggest you consider taking it. It was an upper-division/graduate class in the Geology department.
ksgrm - there has been change for billions of years - not just centuries. We know that. We have learned a lot about Milankovitch cycles and about mechanisms of change. Especially abour feedback loops incolving ice/albedo and CO2 feedbacks. I have probably done a bit more study over the past several years than many - that is why I recommend the sites I linked above - they are not political nor energy industry related. Then follow links from them. There is a wealth of serious climatological research out there. The problem with it is that it tends to be rather dry reading. Most of those studies are not presented in a manner conducive to sound bites.
Perhaps WSU will offer their paleoclimatology course again. If they do I suggest you consider taking it. It was an upper-division/graduate class in the Geology department.
That is something I would be interested in. I am an accountant and we deal with facts and if things don’t add up to me I tend to take a wait and see attitude.
Forgive an observation grm, but so far your “research” seems to be talk radio talking points.
See a documentary before you judge it. By the way? Gore’s intention was for all the profits from the documentary to address climate change.
ksgram,
Gore wants SUV’s made more fuel-efficient, hybrid, or hydrogen.
For example, http://www.hypercar.com/ is the size of a Ford Explorer, equal or better performance/safety, and gets equivalent of 99 mpg gasoline.
Gore flies commercial whenever possible — CEI made a bogus attack that he flies on private jets.
A good site that debunks falsehoods, etc about global warming.http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html
ksgrm,
So you believe that the impacts to fishing involves “view” and “property values”?
It’s 130 towers sticking up in a 24 square mile area, with a network of cables on the bottom. Fishing gear would get fouled in those cables.
Family owned commercial fishing businesses would be hurt, perhaps shutdown. Also charter and recreational fishing, the marinas, tourist shops, etc.
A good place to start - also a great site for weather reports all over the place:
http://www.wunderground.com/
Go to ‘education’ and follow links there. For tropical storms go to ‘tropical’. Can get ski reports and all sorts of other stuff too.
ksgrm - with a about 17 units of Accounting courses under my belt I am reasonably knowledgeable of the subject. However, I would not consider myself expert in Sarbanes-Oxley for example. I suspect my accounting background far exceeds the climatology background of most of the talking points nay-sayers I hear. I KNOW it exceeds that of the talk radio talking heads.
As an accountant (CPA?) how do you react when someone who has not even taken Acct 101 represents himself as an expert and puts out a bunch of talking points on talk shows?
Why is it that if someone doesn’t agree with the viewpoints of someone else they must be taking ‘talking points’ from someone. I do watch Fox news but I also watch CNN. I listen to some radio and subscribe to Time, Newsweek and other magazines that are very liberal in their viewpoints. I am a free thinker and am amazed when voicing a different opinion brings a load of accusations.
As for not seeing Al Gore’s movie - he is boorrring. I dont’s want to pay to see something that will put me to sleep.
Pat - liberal or conservative those are no substitute for studying the technical literature.
The closest thing that I have seen in the popular media was the Discover Channel documentary. Gore’s movie was accurate but incomplete and too simplified..
That’s the second time she did that.
ksgrm =Pat.
Why the switch?
How do you know Gore’s documentary is boring? Oh I give you Al could have presented himself a lot better when he ran for President. But sheesh look what he was running against! But here you are again judging something you have not seen. That is NOT an indicator of an open mind.
I issue my challenge again. See the documentary and I will watch something of your choice.
Hadn[t noticed that JR. Pat, i often found my accounting classes dull but am very glad I took them. (Tax accounting was much more interesting …)
JR - the bast part of gore’s movie was the tobacco executives swearing that there is no scientific proof that cigarettes are not good for you. They created the ‘controversy’ over cigarattes and health just like today’s execs create their ‘controversy’
I don’t know how this has turned into a left-right issue. WHO WANTS TO BREATHE COAL EXHAUST? WHO THINKS ITS A GOOD IDEA TO KEEP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS WILLY-NILLY? The masters of right-wing propaganda have convinced their doltish followers that any attempt to change the pollution habits of our nation is somehow ‘anti-capitalist’ and ‘liberal.’ What a load. Its more along the lines of ‘foresight’ and ‘responsibility.’ The fact that so many wingers have bought the shtick that any attempt to alter the extremely destructive ways of some industries is inherently ‘leftist’ hook, line, and sinker speaks volumes about them.
Ben Huie: A couple environmental comments:
1) This PM, I collected snow and compacted it into an 8 oz. coffee jar. Then let it melt. The resulting water is about 1 to 1 1/2 ounces. I wonder if this indicates our snows do not contain as much water as yesteryear? Of course, I don’t have a scientific way to make the comparison. I will try this again next time it snows. It would be interesting to analyze this snow melt water to see what impurities it contains.
2) This morning’s Wichita EAGLE contained an article in, I believe, the business section. It is entitled, “Upside of Ethanol Can’t be Ignored,” by Jesse McCurry. McCurry is a biofuels consultant with a Wichita firm of Kennedy and Coe, LLC. I believe this is an accounting firm.
Anyway, I called Mr. McCurry today and told him I appreciated the information in his article but that he omitted the very important downside factor, the tremendous use of water in the manufacturing process as well as irrigating the corn, etc.
He admitted that he was trying to present the positives about the ethanol business. I told him that would be like a Bolivian drug lord explaining the positives about their drug industry, building churches, paving streets, other good works projects, but not admitting to damaging people world wide.
I also mentioned that I don’t like Kansas politicians claiming the ethanol industry presents new hope for outstate Kansas communities when in fact the ethanol industry is drying up their drinking water sources.
As I have said before, Kansans have a drinking problem … they want to enjoy a cool glass of fresh water from time to time — and a bath.
Good one JW - he is probably an accountant - I wonder how he feels about non-accountants practicing accounting? Probably the same way I feel about accountants practicing science!
As for the snow - it is quite variable. The rule of thumb is 1 inch rain = 10 inches snow but it can be 20 inches when very cold. Basically, it is more ‘fluffed up’
ksgrm,
“… when you look at the non number of hurricaines in 2006.”
Super typhoon (hurricane) Durian may have killed more than 1,000 people in the Philippines. Wind speeds were up to 165 mph.
Durian was the 4th Super typhoon to hit the Philippines. Several hurricanes hit Mexico. Super Hurricane Ioke traveled all over the Pacific before finally ending up weakening before hitting Alaska and British Columbia. Just because we were not hit doesn’t mean they weren’t there.
Oh yeah, left out China, VietNam, and other places getting hit.
Think about this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_go_pr_wh/epa_lead_pollution