U.S. Supreme Court to consider government's role in CO2 regulation
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it has agreed to hear an appeal filed by a number of states, cities and environmental groups hoping to force the federal government to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains that it cannot regulate CO2 emissions because the Clean Air Act does not give it the authority to do so. An appeals court ruling last year upheld the EPA position.The appeal involves Baltimore, New York City and Washington, D.C., along with California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The group's request for a Supreme Court ruling was opposed by the Bush administration, ten other states and a group representing electricity generating companies.
The case will be heard later this year.
[Source: Reuters]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
23 3:03PM (6/26/2006)
If these greenies want to cut back on CO2 emissions they should kill themselves so they stop emitting the greenhouse gas with every breath they exhale.
Reply
Tom 3:05PM (6/26/2006)
Is this another feable attempt at trying to solve a non-existent problem of "GLOBAL WARMING" or "BIRD FLU"
Why doesn't Reuters list the "10 other states"?
The article sounds jsut a tad one sided, but what can you expect from the liberal "mainstream" media of our day...
Just one question for those living in America (USA), what kind of freedom is it when you're told what you can and can't drive?
Reply
greg 3:14PM (6/26/2006)
They already regulate it for vehicles. Corporate CAFE standards are set based on EPA tests. The fuel consumption is actually measured from the emissions (carbon dioxide) as it is more precise.
Reply
Bryan 3:15PM (6/26/2006)
What kind of freedom is it when someone tells you what you can and cannot shoot?!?!
Tom, you are a complete idiot. I don't know how you did it, but you managed to power on your computer and post a reply...is today your lucky day or what?
The "liberals"...the "LIBERALS"!!!!
Reply
Ryan 3:27PM (6/26/2006)
"Just one question for those living in America (USA), what kind of freedom is it when you're told what you can and can't drive?"
Or smoke a joint
Or pick up a phone with out being listened in on WITHOUT court warrant
Or have your finincial records monitored
Or being able to die for our country and can't drink a beer (18-20 year olds)
Just keep being good little taxpayers.
"The article sounds jsut a tad one sided, but what can you expect from the liberal "mainstream" media of our day..."
I would say the political landscape is a tad bias, it's full republican control. What do you expect? You really think nobody is NOT going to play devils advocate?
Reply
DriftPunch 3:32PM (6/26/2006)
Now you know that the EPA, in fact really does not have the power if they acknowledge that they don't. It must be super clear that they don't in the empowering code. No agency doesn't exploit their power to the fullest.
The court (helpe us out Roberts) should rule against the states here, as only congress can write federal law, and cannot (in theory) delegate that authority using ambiguous wording: "Like, the EPA should be able to do anything to clean up the world man."
Reply
Ryan 3:37PM (6/26/2006)
"The court (helpe us out Roberts) should rule against the states here, as only congress can write federal law, and cannot (in theory) delegate that authority using ambiguous wording"
Might as well, states rights don't mean shit anymore.
Reply
Paul 3:38PM (6/26/2006)
5. EPA would never use its power to the fullest when run by republicans.
THAT SAID- government regulation of anything is BS.
Reply
Brian 3:49PM (6/26/2006)
Super.
The Supreme court turns down viewing patent and copyright laws and lawsuits, which are reshaping our society at an alarming pace -- to take this up?
Could it be possible to choose a larger softball? Way to focus on the difficult decisions.
Reply
Richard Warren 3:50PM (6/26/2006)
A: Read the article, and see who is against this.
B: This about if the EPA can actually rule on this issue.
C: Instead of issuing and handing out labels, keep in mind that this is the RIGHT and priviledge of Americans to sue anybody at anytime, regardless if you are right or wrong in your outlook. It's far from just "greenies" this about getting a ruling that may allow the states to issue their own rulings.
"Is this another feable attempt at trying to solve a non-existent problem of "GLOBAL WARMING" or "BIRD FLU"
Well, in case you have not been keeping up, over 1,500 scientists that specialize in climate have stated that humans are at least partially responsible for global warming and at the last meeting there were no negative comments to the contrary. So perhaps it's worth looking at.
Of course when you have a guy in charge that believes in puesdo science, intelligent design, and that Iraq had WMD's, has just about the worst enviromental record of a politician, would you expect him to not be aginst this?
And you know, I'm not really a "greenie" I think you have the right to drive your SUV if you like and I have the right to drive a more efficent vehicle.
Reply
mr 4:03PM (6/26/2006)
Should I trust the overwhelming scientific evidence that the increasingly rapid global climate change can be attributed to CO2 emissions, or should I trust the guy who uses the word "feable" in a sentence?
Reply
jscro 4:03PM (6/26/2006)
"THAT SAID- government regulation of anything is BS."
Right, because corporations are inheritently good and only exist to serve the people.
Reply
Paul 4:16PM (6/26/2006)
number 10 -
no because the market will control it if the free market is truly left to its own devices. regulation automatically creates loopholes that allow corporations to take advantage of people. if we had an effective media with no regulation the dollar would speak larger than the government ever could
Reply
ultrapod 4:17PM (6/26/2006)
global warming is part of the global commie conspiracy against freedom!
Reply
Whydrive 4:30PM (6/26/2006)
Ryan, So how do you propose catching terrorists? Oh wait, yeah, we should work together with other nations and beg the terrorists not to hurt us.
Reply
rem83 4:44PM (6/26/2006)
I think if you don't accept the fact that global warming exists and is a serious problem, you should move to within 20 feet of sea level.
Reply
Ryan 4:48PM (6/26/2006)
"14. Ryan, So how do you propose catching terrorists? Oh wait, yeah, we should work together with other nations and beg the terrorists not to hurt us."
First off, I propose FOLLOWING THE LAW, such as GET A WARRANT. If you need to change the law fine, but to have *no respect* for it is arrogant and bullshit.
Secondly, between checkpoints at Hoover dam (drive it almost every week) tapping our phone calls WITHOUT warrants, etc. I would have to say the "terrorists" are doing a pretty damn good job at taking our freedom away just fine. i.e: They have "kinda" won in a lot of areas.
I love republicans, don't mind following the laws LOOK!!! Terrorists. LOOK!!!!! Gay Marriage.
DONT LOOK!!! Tapping your phone calls without a warrant!
I love this one:
"Oh wait, yeah, we should work together with other nations and beg the terrorists not to hurt us."
Dude, if you think we are any safer you have been seriously misinformed. Look at Katrina, imagine if that was a terrorist attack, we would have been sitting with our thumbs up our asses going duh?!
WE CAN DO BETTER, have we no drive left?
Reply
Ryan 4:54PM (6/26/2006)
"Oh wait, yeah, we should work together with other nations and beg the terrorists not to hurt us"
Remember our 2,500 dead troops, you don't call that "hurting us"?
Reply
Frank 5:01PM (6/26/2006)
11. "THAT SAID- government regulation of anything is BS."
Right, because corporations are inheritently good and only exist to serve the people.
Posted at 4:03PM on Jun 26th 2006 by jscro
Corporations are neither good not evil. They are amoral. They will do whatever it takes to survive and prosper. They respond to government regulation and market competition like an animal responds to environment change, predtory threats, etc., they adapt or die. The same companies that are giving money to Republican politicians will turn right around and hand it to democrats if they regain power. Heck, a lot of them give to both sides at the same time, just to be on the safe side.
You have to be very careful with regulations because of unintended consequences. The free market will not solve all problems but the reason it is so good the vast majority of the time is that it is not politically motivated. It doesn't work based on liberal or conservative, left or right.
Reply
John 5:25PM (6/26/2006)
I wonder what Ruth Bader Ginsburg WILL DREAM UP TONIGHT. BETTER ASK HER, IT MIGHT MAGICALLY APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION TOMORROW.
Reply