Supreme court says EPA can regulate greenhouse gases
Admittedly, we're a little late to the party on this one, but thankfully, our greener sibling site was on top of things when the Supreme Court made an important ruling yesterday regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement of the Clean Air Act.The ruling revolves around the regulation of carbon dioxide, classifying it as a pollutant and, more specifically, a greenhouse gas. Considering that this is the first case involving global warming, the 5-4 ruling was a major blow to the current administration's opposition of mandatory controls on emissions.
Some of the quotes from the court are worth a read (click here for AutoblogGreen's post), but in the end, it's not the court's place to make regulations, only uphold them. As such, the EPA has to make changes to the existing law and/or uphold current regulations. However, don't expect anything to change until later this decade, if and when the Executive Branch has a shift in its policy towards global climate change.
[Source: Reuters via AutoblogGreen]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
phewop118 9:05AM (4/03/2007)
OMG I can't believe that people actually buy into this power scheme. Global warming is nothing but BS spread for certain people to try to get power (Gore among others) and now things are going to go crazy. CO2 emissions DO NOT increase global temperature. In fact, they help oxygen production. Do believe me? Do some plant research. Ever hear of a symbiotic relationship?
Reply
John 9:25AM (4/03/2007)
You are a fool. Not worth my time to try and argue that.
Reply
Shawn 9:24AM (4/03/2007)
Don't panic people. Nuclear winter will offset global warming.
Reply
jscro 9:34AM (4/03/2007)
phewop118 - You read too many opinion pieces disguised as news.
Reply
Sam 9:56AM (4/03/2007)
Wow. I guess I bette rhold my breath and stop eating meat-after all people and cows are now 2 huge polluters.
Are we going to apply the Global Warming rules to Mars?
After all Mars has a lot more Global Warming than the Earth-with NO industry.
Explain that jscro!
Reply
Dinger 10:12AM (4/03/2007)
Since water vapor is many times more powerful than CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" I wonder if SCOTUS will be telling the EPA to regulate it as well?
Reply
Steven T. 10:16AM (4/03/2007)
No. 1 & 5:
So are you saying that you know more than the IPCC, which has described global warming as a a clear and compelling danger largely caused by humans? If so, you are living in a dream world.
The IPCC reports represent the consensus -- consensus -- of hundreds of scientists from around the world and representing many disciplines. Never before in history has the scientific community studied a phenomena so exhaustively. While there is certainly much more that needs to be learned, the basic facts have been established. The scientific debate about global warming's existence is over.
The only folks out there who are disagreeing with the IPCC are the hack scientists funded by the likes of the fossil fuel industry.
Of course, industry propagandists will continue to spew disinformation in an attempt to divert people's attention from the real question: What do we do to stop global warming and/or mitigate its impacts?
Reply
Shawn 10:14AM (4/03/2007)
Calm down people. I guess I'll be the voice of reason.
There is no definitive proof because no one has been able to explain Earth's many past warming/cooling trends. Anyone feel like they have a definitive answer/proof, apply to the Nobel committee. Without that knowledge, we can't say that we're not in the middle of a natural process.
On the Other hand, it is silly to argue that human existence has no impact on Earth's environment. Why would you be against limiting pollution? Even if you don't believe in all the hype about global warming, isn't it just common sense to clean things up a little?
It is easy to hate hypocrites like Al Gore and basically any so-called environmentalists. The media will always jump on the radicals, but I don't know too many people that are against cleaning up their own neighborhoods.
Reply
DriftPunch 10:44AM (4/03/2007)
It was once the consensus -- consensus -- of hundreds of scientists that Galileo was wrong in his theory that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Of course, he and his supporters were being financed by the wealthy and selfish mercantile class and "Roma Scribe News" (those radical monks are not worth their quills). Of course, we all know that Pope Urban VIII is correct in his astronomical novel "An inconvienient Jesuit" and all who disagree are to be swept aside and burned as witches.
Reply
Steven T. 10:52AM (4/03/2007)
No. 9: Either you are very ignorant of the scientific method or you are a propagandist who spews particularly vile (and wholly inaccurate) disinformation. Shame on you.
Reply
nj 11:06AM (4/03/2007)
Well given that a human exhales more co2 in one day than a car and the population went from 1 billion to 4 billion over the last 100 years it's clear that global warming is really caused by the breathing of humans!!! The UN should impliment a 1 child per couple like china has, worldwide. There should also be a policy of humane putting down of humans that do not contribute to the evolution of the human race. The human population must be taken back to under 1 billion asap to save mother earth!!!!
Reply
Mike 11:07AM (4/03/2007)
Consensus =/= scientific fact. It’s just consensus until it’s overturned by better data. Which creates a new consensus, that eventually gets overturned by better data. And so on. Perhaps this story represents better data, since it goes farther back in time than the hockey stick hoax and takes into account data from widely dispersed parts of the world, perhaps it doesn’t. Time will tell.
Relying solely on consensus is an appeal to authority, which is a classically fallacious argument.
The IPCC report was written by scientists, editted by beauocrats. Many scientists dropped out after they saw what was being edited out. The recently released IPCC report is simply a summary document. the final report hasn’t been completed. How can you make conclusions in the summary, when the final document hasn’t been finished yet? It’s a miracle!
Second, someone doubted that scientists manipulate data to fit their end theory. Why did the UN try and “erase” the medieval warming period then? And why are they inflating the numbers to make humans more responsible?
Here’s some reading:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
Read this, and come back to me and claim that politicians aren’t manipulating global warming data.
The IPCC refused to allow any scientists who disagreed with their assumptions of man-made global warming from participating, used models long debunked as faulty and missing many, many key variables (hint, to date none of them are able to take past data and even come close to predicting known climates). There are good reasons to help take care of the environment. The problem is political activists have taken over the environmental movement and eventually will destroy any good environmental work because of their bogus hyperbole. And when the time comes that the planet faces a real problem no one will listen. Y2K hyperbole was first….the whole man-made global warming is second.
And here is a nice little piece on how the IPCC covertly corrected errors in their report after it was published. Also points out errors in Gore’s statements that he has yet to correct.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf
Reply
Steven T. 11:18AM (4/03/2007)
No. 12: Your missive reads like a press release from one of the oil companies. All very finely produced propaganda.
If folks are interested in a scientifically thoughtful discussion of global warming science, check out:
http://www.realclimate.org/
This is a website run by mainstream scientists with a high level of credibility in global warming research.
Reply
Daniel 11:47AM (4/03/2007)
Steven T. obviously has something to gain by foistering the global-warming scare on us. Who do YOU work for Mr. T? Gore? The democrat party? The UAW? get real you fascist hack. Dr's Spencer and Lindzen and many others don't agree with you and they're smarter than both you or the IPCC. Not that that's hard to be :)
Again, Steven T is an ignorant lying hack bolshie.
Reply
Mike 11:54AM (4/03/2007)
"All very finely produced propaganda."
here is my propaganda:
"Consensus =/= scientific fact."
Please, Steve. I beg you to show me the facts from the IPCC, not just the summary. You show me facts, not summary, and I will listen a little more.
Reply
Chet 12:09PM (4/03/2007)
This is good news. If the Supreme Court says the EPA has the authority to regulate this, it can be argued that the states DON'T.
Reply
Sam 12:35PM (4/03/2007)
16. This is good news. If the Supreme Court says the EPA has the authority to regulate this, it can be argued that the states DON'T.
Posted at 12:09PM on Apr 3rd 2007 by Chet
Wow Chet, you just made my day!
Reply
Mike 12:51PM (4/03/2007)
EPA and CARB have always co-incided. Federal regulations cannot superceed state and local regs, unless state and local regs are unconstitutional or agains federal law.
There is a difference between law and regulation. So, in any given locality, you will still be required to meet the more stringent of federal and local regulations.
Reply
chewy 1:31PM (4/03/2007)
Heck yes. Fianally. While I am not the biggest greenie alive, completely ignoring and not even categorizing C02 as an emission is silly. Maybe finally SUVs/pickups will be acountable for their actions.
Reply
Mike 1:38PM (4/03/2007)
Chewy, how do you account for the C02 from cows and your mouth? Breathing emmits more C02 throughout the day than my SUV.
Reply