April 2, 2007

Bush administration, neanderthals being left behind on global warming.

The Supremes hand the know-nothings a defeat, another step in dragging them kicking and screaming into confronting reality.
The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.

The court's four conservative justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented.

Many scientists believe greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, are leading to a warming of the Earth, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.

The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case.

"In many ways, the debate has moved beyond this," said Chris Miller, director of the global warming campaign for Greenpeace, one of the environmental groups that sued the EPA. "All the front-runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, even the business community, are much further along on this than the Bush administration is."
...
The court had three questions before it.

--Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

--Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

--Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that had grown frustrated by the Bush administration's inaction on global warming.

7 Comments:

At 4/03/2007 7:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You state, "many scientists believe" - well, dope, as we are learning, more and more do not believe...

 
At 4/03/2007 12:33 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Where are you "learning" that? The Drudge Report?

Hey... what's the view there with your head in the sand?

 
At 4/04/2007 3:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The view here is far better than the view that you have - with your head up your _ _ _. Come on, you fall straight in step with the sky-is-falling Global Warming crowd with no willingness to see (or hear) the other side.

Dope, what happened after the hurricane season of 2005 when all you Global Warming groupies were saying that it was GW related and that 2006 would be worse?

Fact - 2006 was not only not worse, it was almost non-existant. Now I am sure that you'll either censor this, or claim that the GW-hurricane claims never took place!!!!

 
At 4/05/2007 7:34 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Well, keep reading the corporate spin and keep your head firmly wedged in the sand.

Comparing one year to another in discussing this issue is beyond stupid when you're talking about periods of hundreds of thousands of years.

And of course, I'll never understand anyone's motivation to rabidly argue AGAINST doing anything at all to prevent greenhouse gasses and air pollution in general.

What the hell is the reasoning behind that? Seems nuts.

 
At 4/05/2007 12:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It hurts the economy, wastes economic resources and these things hurt the common man...

...all for something that has no scientific proof - just assumptions and speculation. Personally, I see no reason to hurt the public in general, to appease a fringe perspective.

You do however, and we will have to disagree.

 
At 4/05/2007 4:30 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You're really deluded if you think the theory of global warming is some "fringe" concept. It's been acknowledged by the Academy of Sciences of every industrialized county in the world.

That's "fringe". Who's relying on assumption and speculation? I'd say you.

 
At 4/10/2007 2:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey I have an idea. Let's limit all households to one vehicle and one home. Wouldn't that pose a hardship to the real culprits here?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home