The Bush administration has long argued that it doesn’t have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Not so, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday in a long-awaited ruling that could signal a dramatic shift in the regulatory environment on carbon emissions. "The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized," said Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 5-4 majority.
The ruling was about car emissions. But many utilities have seen the writing on the wall about the inevitability of greenhouse gas regulations, which could make wind power and other alternative energy sources more competitive. Now the Supremes have laid the legal groundwork for such federal oversight.
The decision "sends a clear signal to the market that the future lies not in dirty, outdated technology of yesterday, but in clean energy solutions of tomorrow like wind, solar," said a spokesman for the Sierra Club.
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
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
65 Comments
Just think.
With only one more CONservative Bush-appointed judge, the polluters would have been able to poison the environment with impunity.
How did the greatest country in the world let itself be ruled by a snot-puke like our pResident?
Just unbelievable . . .
Exactly and I agree with the Supreme Court.
In that the U.S. can take care of its own emission standards. We don’t have to pay bribe money to the Kyoto Treaty or lip service to the UN that will spend our tax dollars without representation.
The SCOTUS did not say Bush or Congress HAD to do anything.Learn to read, Eagle Editors!I have the authority to do lots of things, just because I can, does not mean that I should!Also, the Court did NOT find that man was causing any warming.The Court did not find that man could stop any warming.These are legislative matters.
Take a deap, CO2 filled breath and calm down.(Carbon Dioxide does stop hyperventalion, try breathing in a sack a few times, Randy!
Econ101,
The Bush Administration claimed it didn’t have juridiction to act, and that therefore it could not be sued by states for failing to act. The SCOTUS invalidated this claim. Therefore, if the Administration fails to act, it will have to find some other rationale than a procedural one.
You appear to have misread what the editors wrote. Not quite egregiously–maybe only “substantially.”
Republican,
The SCOTUS ruling says nothing of the sort regarding the UN or the Kyoto Protocol. It is appropriately mute as to the use of international apparatuses for deciding precedents within U.S. law.
CFUnderstood.However, if Bush had WON this would be a slam dunk.That Bush did not win this round is not that big a deal.The Courts have not mandated any regulations.The Courts have simply said the Courts Could hear any lawsuits concerning the lack of any regulations.This is not a “directed verdict” to the lower courts, to the Congress, or to the POTUS.
From my read of the media reports on the decision, subject, as always to retraction, revision, or other alteration once I have a chance to read the SCOTUS opinion(s):
1) A majority of the justices sitting on SCOTUS rejected the argument that States (and others) had no standing to bring an action against EPA on this issue;
2) The same majority held that EPA had the statutory authority to regulate the production of carbon dioxide and other green house gasses under the Clean Air Act; and
3) Left open the question of whether EPA could refuse to issue such regulations; per media reports, Justice Stevens suggested that if EPA wanted to argue it could so refuse, it needed to articulate reasons therefor more closely attuned to the statutory language of the Act rather than providing a “laundry list” of general reasons as to why it didn’t need to issue such regulations which have no direct relationship to the statutory language.
I’ve also not read the SCOTUS 9-0 opinion in the Duke Power case, also issued this morning. From the media reports on both, I believe it advisable to read them together to attempt to discern the meaning of both. Same disclaimer applies.
My concern is that independent States will try to coerce the EPA in the selective manner THEY THINK is relevant.
Could this happen?
For instance, could Kansas decide (State Legislators) that the EPA has no right to regulate emission standards in our State, while Oklahoma decides to sue the EPA to make them enforce emission standards MORE stringent than any in the nation?
I can’t understand the idea behind giving individual States the right to pursue the EPA on whatever environmental flavor of the day they see fit.
Am I misreading this?
One can find out more at Findlaw, recent rulings about the case.
There were the questions found at the Supreme Court of the U.S. concerning the issue.
05-1120 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA
DECISION BELOW:415 F3d 50
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-1361
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), requires the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (”EPA “) to set emissionstandards for “any air pollutant” from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines “which in his judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”The questions presented are:
1. Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in section 202(a)(1).2. Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under section 202(a)(1).Cert. Granted 6/26/2006
Sounds like crusader x is back
GS, you are misreading it; shorthand: the only way Kansas or Oklahoma under your hypothetical could “sue” EPA would be if EPA refuses to issues regulations on Carbon Dioxide and other GHGs for no rational reason under the statute (as I understand the opinion from the media reports).
She didnt misread it. She’s waiting for the reich wing websites to explain it to her so she can post her daily talking points. Now she is posting on her own, and it shows.
diddy:
GS asks a serious question; you take a cheap shot.
If you have substance to add, please do so. I haven’t read the opinion (been in court most of the day), so I’ll defer to Vaughn at this point.
You must mean a cheap shot disregarding a serious post like the one you shot at Ed. Pot, meet kettle.
gmc is going to be really busy if he intends to be the blog nanny.
Republican usually is the blog nanny and GS is usually the blog bully. Get a program to keep the players straight.
VT – i think there is precedent of states having standards more stringent than Fed. A notable example is CA (followed by other states) having stricter standards for cars.
Link to SCOTUS opinion; haven’t read yet, due to time constraints; enjoy.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Yes, Ben, there is such a history, but this case doesn’t seem to affect this in any way. Thus, my response to GS. BTW, it is my understanding that EPA has, in the past, used CA as a “test bed” by allowing the more-stringent regulations on various environmental issues.
Vaughn Tolle,
Thank you for the link to the opinion.
Reference #10,”A more dramatic rise was yet to come: In 2006, carbon dioxide lev-els reached 382 parts per million, see Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Mauna Loa CO2 Monthly MeanData, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat …, a level thought to exceed the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at any point over the past 20-million years.”
A graph of data,http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
VT:
I’ve done a quick reading of the case; it seems you’re probably (and I’m gonna equivicate here, a lot) right. The case essentially says that a party, here Mass., may sue the EPA for failure to act according to Congressional mandate. Congress itself granted such authority to sue.
It’s interesting that they accorded a state (Mass) with a special status to sue. The dissent (I think) is right in that there appears to be no basis for giving states some special status as litigants due to pseudo-sovereign status. Why would not any person who could show the essentials of standing sue? Why would a state have such special status? I.e., if a ski operator was losing snow due to GW and thus his property lost value – could he have the same standing?
I’m probably thinking out loud, Vaughn. And standing for civil suit is hardly my specialty (standing to object to search, on the other hand . . .)
What do you think?
GMC, I’ve yet to have much an opportunity to read the opinion; clients most of the day, etc., and a need to leave soon. However, from my brief skim, there is an interesting standing issue which was resolved by the majority in favor of Massachusetts, allegedly taken from parts of the statute itself, with which the dissent disagrees. Asking everyone’s indulgence, will try to give it a good read sometime soon, and give a bit more informed response.
Understand your question on non-State party standing; don’t have a good response for now, but it is curious to me.
Looks like some Fisters are busy being trolls and blog disrupters.
Yawns at obvious and puny attempts.
(stretches)
“having the authority to regulate is not the same thing as justifying the regulation”
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070402c.html
Saying ” I don’t have that authority” just won’t cut it anymore.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
You offer us, and your clients, a cns link?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cybercast_News_Service
Rosell, the ‘Stone Age’ did NOT end because humans ran out of stones. The fossil-fuel age WILL end soon.
BTW: The Industrial Age mechanized our “breathing”. Human’s breath is INSIGNIFICANT compared to what’s released by our burning of oil, coal, wood, etc.
To me – this sounds like it comes AWFULLY close to advocating the government be allowed to control the very air we EXHALE.
After all – we do exhale carbon dioxide, don’t we?
lol
We have a federal agency (EPA) and we’re going to force them to comply with State legislators.
Does that make sense?
Perhaps we will need another federal agency to oversee the collective gripes of the States against our, already in-place, federal EPA.
Sounds like more bureaucratic red tape, to me.
Why have the EPA at all?
Obviously GS has difficulty remembering smog. California was the worst polluter in the nation until they started passing regs in excess of what the EPA dictated. In fact, the EPA used much of what ca had done to draw up their regs.
So now, if ca doesn’t meet EPA regs, it gets fined. Sometimes states know what they need better than the feds do. But that, in GS’s view, both isn’t needed and shouldn’t happen. According to GS, who wants to see the Santa Monica mountains from five miles away anyway? Neo-con logic; an anomaly in itself.
GMC, having now read the opinions (majority and two dissents) my comments are as follows:
1) The part of the majority opinion on standing is remarkable. While I do not fully join in Chief Justice Roberts’ analysis thereof in his dissent, the idea of a state having some special “standing” vis a vis a private litigant is troubling to me. While I could flippantly say “the majority wanted to decide the case so it found standing, but the Chief Justice and others didn’t want to decide the case so they argue no standing”, to me the issue is much deeper than that. I’m not familiar with the 1907 opinion cited by the majority and the Chief Justice for different propositions; the treatise cited in the footnote in the majority opinion concerning same illustrates that there was some authority for the majority’s position on the issue. As noted, I find the whole thing remarkable.
2) Assuming standing, I feel that the construction the majority placed upon the cited provisions of the Clean Air Act to be reasonable, and that the majority’s construction thereof is, to me, more persuasive than that placed upon it by Justice Scalia in his dissent. I don’t have to strain “to get there”, not a good test (:-)), but that’s what I have to offer.
So, what does this opinion really say? It says that Massachusetts had standing to intervene in the dispute over the failure of EPA to issue regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of automobiles; that greenhouse gases (including, but not limited to carbon dioxide) generated by automobiles are air pollutants within the broad definition provided by the Clean Air Act; that because of this, the Administrator of the EPA has clear authority to issue regulations concerning same; and that the EPA Administrator may decline to issue said regulations so long as the reasons for such declination are related to the statutory language, and not just a generalized “laundry list” of reasons for the declination with no apparent relationship to the statutory language.
All in all, a fairly narrow opinion concerning statutory construction, once the standing issue is resolved. The reach of the opinion is to my mind not as broad as those cheering or decrying same have promoted in statements made to the media.
A final cautionary note: while the standing issue may seem arcane to most of you, I feel (and I believe GMC agrees) that this is the most troubling part of the majority opinion. The statutory construction issue is one which I believe the Court should have reached; I’m not entirely comfortable with the majority’s rationale for granting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts standing in this case, and thus, I’m not sure this is the appropriate case to determine the issues raised in construing the provisions of the Clean Air Act at issue.
JM – you keep throwing out strawmen. In fact, your very point that the EPA handled the smog situation shows that they, as a federal agency, were instrumental in solving the situation.
The States want various implementations. Who will control that?
This is a short-sighted decision that I fully expect to see overturned.
GS, the need for a consistent set of rules through regulation is why EPA either “steps up to the plate” to issue regulations or provides a rationally related reason for its refusal to do so. As to states rushing to fill the void, I wonder if, in fact, they can do so; preemption and all that. I freely admit I’m not all that knowledgeable of the provisions of the Clean Air Act, but I believe the ability of the several states to issue local regulations is dependent upon the EPA giving the state(s) permission to do so. Maybe those more knowledgeable than I might address this.
VT -
Yea, the standing issue is interesting. Once you get to statutory interpretation, it seems pretty clear and unambiguous. As I noted last night, I’m not convinced that a state has a “special” status; it seems the Copper cite relied on for the majority doesn’t quite fit the mold the majority seeks to fit it into. However, Congress, it appeared, granted authority to sue to force implimentation of the statute; had it not been Mass, could a private individual have similar standing?
GS -
You’ve got it exactly backward. The case does not encourage each state to sue to force it’s own preferrential regulation. On the contrary, the case requires EPA to act (or not) based upon the statutory authorization passed by Congress. EPA clearly has authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Their actions must be governed by the authorizing statute. Essentially, Mass. got a ruling that said that EPA had to follow the law.
Think of it as a writ of mandamus.
And GS -
Who would overturn it? The SCOTUS is the final legal word, and teh decision affirms Congressional authority by affirming that the statutory language is binding on the regulatory agency.
So just who do you think would overturn it?
The litigants have tried to convert CO2 into a pollutant. That’s like saying water is a pollutant.
I think a certain Supreme Court Justice needs to enroll in a basic Bio Chemistry class.
GMC, it is hard for me to determine from the opinion whether a private individual would have standing to sue. Taking a broad read of the statutory provisions set out in the opinion, my “guess” is that the answer is yes, given that Congress appears to have granted authority to sue to ensure implementation of the statute. Of course, as the issue being decided by the Court was whether Massachusetts had standing, not a lot of learning can be ascertained about the status of a potential individual plaintiff.
What concerns me from a “standing” perspective is the apparently different test applied to determine a State’s right to bring the action. It appears to me that some gentle gymnastics were used to arrive at the result. Again, I’ve not looked at the Copper case cited; from my read of the footnote and dissent, I suspect it might not be particularly helpful to my determination. Facially, it sounds like the Copper case is one of those delightful decisions that is full of ambiguity, and may be read to support one’s position on this matter, whatever the same may be. I note that the dissent of the Chief Justice suggests the case isn’t really about standing; a view not shared by the authors of the treatise cited by the majority in support of its position that Copper was about standing and supported the result.
Republican:
The language of the statute regulates “any physical, chemical . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air.” (from the syllabus of the decision)
CO2 is a chemical substance. It is emitted. That it is also a naturally-occurring chemical is irrelevent.
Seems pretty clear to me. The language is fairly unambiguous.
VT -
I had the same thought RE: a state as haveing “special status.”
I’m not all that sure the GW folks are right, but DAMN IT I’m tired of buying foreign oil. I’m tired of contributing to those F*#kers overseas that are killing our troops.
If this means mandates that AT LEAST gets the majority of our cars to run on H2 or electricity then Halla-freakin-luyah. Let’s get off the foreign oil tit !!!!!
GMC,
“That it is also a naturally-occurring chemical is irrelevent.”
I wouldn’t be so sure. One only has to look at the by products of agriculture and find relevance.
SolDevVB,
Where do you think electricty comes from? It is not some obscure thing in the wall.
What do you think it takes to make Hydrogen? Energy. Where does energy come from?
Maybe if we could utilize more of our own oil potential instead of being hamstrung by the liberals we wouldn’t be so dependent on foriegn oil.
GMC – SCOTUS will overturn its OWN decision, based upon suits that land in their lap from this.
Nathan,Have you looked at how INEFFICIENT internal combustion engines are? Yeah you have to make electricity. There is wind, solar, nuclear… tons of different ways (to include fossil fuels) to generate electricity and hydrogen.
If we could replace HALF of the fossil fuel burning cars today with alternative (not even going with E85) fuels, look at the impact that would give to the oil imports???
And go with the environment for a second. Ever been in a traffic jam in summer? Windows down and the exhaust streaming in your window?
Hydrogen and electric cars are more efficient, get us off the tit, and pollute less. How does 0 to 60 in 4 seconds sound for an electric car????
C’mon Nathan, it’s just a better way to do things.
GS -
That’s the beauty of being the SCOTUS. They pick and choose their cases – they don’t just “land” in their lap. They must choose to rehear the issue. Why would they do so after having decided this case? As noted, absent the standing question, the statutory interpretation question is fairly unambiguous and straightforward.
Bottom line, the SCOTUS said that a party, here a state with some “special status” as a litigant, can sue to force EPA to act according to it’s Congressional mandate.
They said: This is the law. Follow it.
Why would SCOTUS rehear and reverse ANY case, GMC? Because either the political clime has changed, the members have changed, or more information has come to light.
But just the fact that they DO reverse their own decisions from time to time prompts me to think this is one of those.
People will think it great until they actually start regulating it as a pollutant.
Belgium just started, by outlawing BBQing. They are investigating reducing human output by limiting exercise and jogging. You see it increases CO2.
And yes, they are looking worldwide to reduce the entire population of Cattle for their immense Methane production which is an even greater pollutant than CO2. This will drive the price of meat to horrendous levels along with milk
Im guessing all the folks at Cessna and Hawker, may find it disheartening when the put the kabosh on all those little 5-10 place personal jets.
Well see how this goes down when the bread lines start around the country.
Im still waiting for the caterwaulling to come from the soccer moms when the price of milk goes up $0.60 to 1.00 per gallon due to Biofuels driving up corn feed prices to all time highs. Just saw the price predictions for milk in the coming months, up by 60 cents per gallon soon.
Since it is a pollutant we will need to get rid of all the carbonated beverages and start drinking flat beer and coke.
Sheeshh. what a load of horseshit. Especially when all they wanted to do as beat up on the car companies and the Dem Senators from Michigan, would have none of it.
And cars have had over 99% of their pollution removed. To get the rest will require thousands of dollars to be thrown away chasing a few items.
And now it has been applied to all kinds of things that will result in a huge pushback once enacted…if ever.
You make good (and scary) points mrbill. Looking at banning exercise? WTF?
How would you feel though about mandates that promote replacing, say, 75% of new passenger cars over the next 5 years to H2 or electric sources of power?
GSheridan,
“After all – we do exhale carbon dioxide, don’t we?”
Humans exhale about 2 pounds of CO2/day.
A low mpg SUV can emit about 2 pounds/minute, or ~2,880 pounds/day
“Because either the political clime has changed, the members have changed, or more information has come to light.”
The majority based their decision on the “more information has come to light” re climate science, and the strong consensus on AGW.http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
AGW will become more undeniable in the future.
Reading in the bowels of the decision I come across the actual words…they seem to be somewhat different…
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, noted that:
“We need not and do not reach the question” of whether the EPA “must make an endangerment finding.”
In other words, the ruling is not some stern Al Gore-like command for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
Exactly, mrbill; you found the basis of my comment uppost concerning the fact that the EPA Administrator may decline to issue such regulations. As I’m sure you also found, Justice Stevens also indicated that the failure to issue regulations must be for reasons more closely related to the statutory language than the general (I believe he used the term “laundry list”) rationale given for not issuing such regulations.
“uppost”=”upthread”
Mr. Tolle and GMC are missing their red line strike-through option on legal software. :)
It would be a good thing to add to typepad blog authoring, that and re-editing. I will suggest that to the TypePad people. :)
As for Electric cars etc…mostly nonsense. You have to GENERATE the electricity somewhere. Maybe when you get all that FREE electricity from Solar etc. maybe. But to carry it in batteries you have a horrid polution issue with either Lead, Cadmium, Lithium, or some type of storage medium.
Hydrogen is NOT A FUEL SOURCE, it does not occur in its primary state, you have to MAKE it. It is a STORAGE medium. It is and will be for many generation far more expensive. Maybe if we went on a big building spree of Nukes and broke it down from water with “cheap” high heat or electrolysis…but doubtful.
No infrastructure to pipe it around. You can not use the pipe we use for nat gas or oil…Hydrogen passes through it and causes it to crystallize and break.
Some research going on in storing it in different matrix materials but still doubtful.
And the Ethanol is one one of the biggest scams I think I have ever seen. Other than Social Security it is at the top.
Uses more energy to grow and farm and distill and get to market than you get out of it per gallon/btu. But heck farmers are good at milking these especially when you can get the politicians to keep them happy…and even better, quiet.
But this issue may be breaking now that the Media has sort of caught on to what the cost of food is going to do. If grain and foods that we would normally export to poor countries is seen as being going to our gas guzzlers instead, the Left will start yelping again and then the pols will look into it. CNN is alredy looking at the price of food , milk, etc. And when the Media has Castro griping, well you know the drill, if Castro is upset, then CNN and the Eagle will be also.
mrbill,
You’ve got it completely backwards. Detroit is going bankrupt because they don’t offer high mpg vehicles. Toyota, Honda, etc are taking their market.
Detroit could greatly increase mpg (reduce CO2) and improve safety, with materials like carbon fiber composites, and better engineering.
Any small increase in cost would be quickly paid back by lower fuel costs.
Higher efficiency is our cheapest “fuel”.
It also applies to airplanes, heavy trucks, etc…http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Cosmos,As a resident of Michigan, I’m reminding you –ever so courteously – that the UAW is also breaking Detroit’s back.
Get the union OUT of the auto industry and get the industry to produce a long lasting efficient vehicle.
SolDevVB,
It takes more energy to split H20 into Hydrogen than it produces.
I am not exactly sure on the effeciency, but either way, you are still going to have to build more power plants to do this which will take coal, oil, or Nuclear Power.
Figuring that the democrats and liberals will never allow nuclear power that leaves us with oil and coal which still leaves us needing oil and coal.
I’m still waiting on the scientists that come up with a fusion reactor that can produce energy. Maybe someday…
Lots of ways to get at hydrogen…
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
SolDevVB,
That is nice, but those methods are not going to be able to produce enough Hydrogen to power the millions of vehicles driven every day, the millions of Trucks transporting our food everyday…
I could make Hydrogen in my chemistry lab… but not enough to power the entire nations industry!
Come on, I am being practical here.
So am I. I got a link from cosmos at one point regarding the H2 issue. I can’t remember it nor do I care to go back through so many posts.
H2 and electricity are very viable alternatives. Not only clean, but gets us off the Arab’s oil tit. Surprised you don’t support that.
SolDevVB,
I support H2. But to get H2 you need energy. To get that energy right now you would need coal and oil.
It defeats the purpose.
That is my point.
SolDevVB,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that Detroit’s low mpg products were the only factor. Labor, health costs, etc also problems.
Lot’s of info re hydrogen… Boeing is even building a small H2 plane.http://www.greencarcongress.com/h2/index.html
And here,’General Energy Policy’http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid306.php
Nathan,
The FIRST step is higher energy efficiency, to reduce the amount of fuel needed.And there are other ways of producing H2 than “coal and oil”.
We’re not even close to achieving optimal energy efficiency. New homes can be built with R-60+ insulation. Didn’t do it before because fossil-fuel energy was cheap. Now, it’s becoming much more expensive, so increasing the cost of new-home construction with higher insulation is becoming a reasonable, cost-effective proposition.
Rooftop solar cells become more cost-effective. They’d be even more so with more solar-power research being done, followed by mass-production and efficiencies of scale.
We have so much geothermal energy available it’s almost ridiculous. Ocean wave and tidal energy is huongous. Wind energy is gargantuan.
Physicists and engineers at the DOE Lawrence-Livermore lab in California think they can produce controllable hydrogen fusion using lasers. These are some really, really bright people. If they are wrong, the cost of their error over the last decade, approaching $10 billion, will be about the same as a few months fighting in Irag. Big difference: the LL physicists and engineers are a lot smarter than Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and George Bush, and a lot more honest, to boot.
Here is the result in action. Using helicopters and infrared cameras to police your BBQ. Fines are 20 Euros or 20 plus dollars for your now underground BBQ.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070403/62999935.html
I can see it now, Sedgwich Co. Sheriffs and SWAT teams attacking our home and ending up getting shot due to our protecting ourselves with the new concealed carry….heh as Glenn says….Indeed.
Its stupid since there is still much questions about if the current spike in temp is anthropometric or just a solar thingy. When the polar caps on Mars are also disapperaing and the temp rising..these needs to be a LOT more research on the issue. When in 1971 TIME had the same cover except with pictures of Ice and the headline warning of the coming ICE AGE…it may be unknowable. Weather is a non-linear system intermingled with Chaos theory…so a singe grab point by computer and extrapolating from that is…pretty much a crap shoot.
mrbill -
Your story is from Novosti, a Russian news agency. Confirm that from elsewhere (I looked; a quick Google did not turn up any confirmation) and I’ll buy that.
Think about it; the helicopter enforcement they supposedly would do would produce more emissions than the grills!!!!
I call BS.
That said, yes, there will be lots of silly proposals that are all about feel good and accomplish little or nothing.
And as has been noted; the SCOTUS did not dictate any particular policy, nor make a judgement about GW. They merely stated that the authorizing legislation gave EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses, and any policy doing so (or refusing to do so) must be grounded in the statutory language.
mrbill,
Helicopters emit much more CO2 than barbecues.
Sounds like an April Fools column to me.http://recycledsip.blogspot.com/2007/04/euro-cent-wise-euro-foolish.html“Okay, this story is from Novosti, the Russian news agency, and probably should be taken with a deer-lick-sized block of salt:”
Your Mars, and 1970’s Time magazine are BS.
But climate is NON-LINEAR, and if human-added GHG’s pushs it past the “tipping point”, natural positive feedbacks will accelerate the warming.
We will NOT be able to stop the climate change.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070402c.html
cool it warmies!
PAUL F. ROSELL,
Thank you for the cns (cybercast news service) link. It’s a real hoot.
“Marc Morano, spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe” (R, fossil-fuel industry).
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano“Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service…
Morano was “previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Man in Washington,’ as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine.”
‘FACTSHEET: Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI’http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2“Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research
Rosell, you’ve got ZERO science against AGW.