SCOTUS - CO2 a pollutant!

[piratemonkey]

Contrary to conservative allegations that CO2 isn't a pollutant and that the people who will suffer the effects of Global Warming don't have cause to sue, the Supreme Court spanked an EPA refusal to make the determination as to whether CO2 is a pollutant or not.

The Supreme Court ruled today, in what amounts to a rebuke of the Bush administration, that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from automobile emissions, and that it has shirked its duty in not doing so.

First, the majority brushed aside the Bush administration’s assertion that the Clean Air Act does not treat carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as “pollutants,” and thus does not give the E.P.A. the authority to regulate them.

Secondly, the five justices declared that contrary to the administration, Massachusetts and the 11 other states and various other plaintiffs that sued the E.P.A. do indeed have legal standing to pursue their suit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/washington/02cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1175547595-4QI6fO5RPUBqfEqCaZ3Yxw
Bush getting spanked when he denies reality again...

[BoogyMan]

I wasn't aware that anyone was saying CO2 wasn't a pollutant, just that they don't feel it to be the primary cause of global warming as do so many who hold to alarmist positions.

[Stoner]

I wasn't aware that anyone was saying CO2 wasn't a pollutant, just that they don't feel it to be the primary cause of global warming as do so many who hold to alarmist positions.


This is just political spin. Nothing more.

[Stoner]

CO2 is not an air pollutant and should not be treated as one

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070402c.html

[sbannon]

I hate to litter on your posting PM, but actually what the SCOTUS ruled was specific to the EPA's duties and obligations, and not a decision as to whether Global Warming is real, or if pollutants have any affect on the environment in any manner.

I know this seems like a real victory for environmentalists, I'd like to believe it was myself, but after reading the decision today and also what the chief justice made clear in his dissent, I realized that there's little meat to sink our teeth into here.

Basically, what it comes down to is the EPA has been saying it had the authority to regulate auto exhaust emissions, however that it also had the right to not regulate them in some states. The SCOTUS agreed that the EPA's guidelines do encompass auto emissions, but slammed the EPA for believing it could pick and chose where to enforce standards on a state by state basis.

While this all sounds good on the surface for those of us who care about this, the court was very careful to distance the ruling from the more contested debate of Global Warming and the affects of man's pollutants on the environment.

All they really said was the EPA must keep and enforce auto emission standards across the board. I believe they'll comply by lowering the standards to pointless levels, and ultimately turn this ruling into a set back for environmentalists.

[Labrocca]

Personally I am all for lowering co2 emmisions. For one that means cleaner air to breathe overall. For another that will force companies to create better fuel efficient vehicles. So it's a win-win if the EPA takes over. I could care less about the politics of it and the whole global warming debate. I think it's a smoke screen by the left in order to gain control of various industries. But imho their intent isn't evil...the same goes for Bush taking Iraq...not an evil intent and we are better off for it. We could be much better off if the EPA took control.

[piratemonkey]

I wasn't aware that anyone was saying CO2 wasn't a pollutant, just that they don't feel it to be the primary cause of global warming as do so many who hold to alarmist positions.


Bush's EPA's official position was that CO2 wasn't a pollutant, therefore they didn't have the authority to regulate it. Seriously.

sbannon. I understand. Please re-read my above post.

[Elrathin]

I think it's a smoke screen by the left in order to gain control of various industries.


I'm curious by your comment, what industries would the left control by this and how? Also what would they do with it that is so terrible?

[sbannon]

PM, I got you. But, the EPA was enforcing it in select states, but not in some others--for admittedly political reasons--as they felt was their right to pick and chose. That's where the real spanking, if there was one, came down here.

But as I said, I don't see the EPA raising standards across the board from this ruling, and cutting their political deals, so fear it will just lead to them enacting a nationwide standard so low that it's pointless to even have. We'll see.

[Mayberry]

I guess we should all stop exhaling then. Look, I'm all for cleaner technologies and getting off foreign oil, but all this has a catch 22. More technology means more expense, which means higher prices, which means more people can't afford the new technology, which means more people will stick with the old technology. Savvy? So, unless one intends to BAN the old technology, thereby putting even more strain on the folks who can least afford it, the gains will be minimal at best. So, until we rid ourselves of fossil fuels altogether, the whole point is really moot. But nobody seems to be willing to rid ourselves of fossil fuels, because frankly, there's too much money to be made on it. Nuclear power is the only commercially feasible alternative to date, which comes with it's own political can of worms, so we're really stuck between a rock and a hard place. More regulation only causes more expense, which only hurts those who can't afford it. What this country needs to do is get their heads out of their arses, consider the VIABLE options, and proceed with the best options available. I have no doubt that someone will figure out a cheap way to derive hydrogen from water, or invent the Mr. Fusion, or whatever, but until that day comes, if we really want to do something, we've got to build more nuclear plants, and lots of 'em. Everyone always wants to blame the automobile for "greenhouse gasses", but it takes a hell of a lot of cars to produce the emissions of just one fossil fired power plant. All this ruling is is a token to make the libs feel like they got something, at the expense, as usual, of Average Joe.

[Labrocca]

It's already been established that the President can't be tried for a crime during his presidency he can only be impeached then a possibly trial but we all know that will not happen simply because it's not how America is run. We don't and shouldn't put an ex-president on trial or in jail. At least that's my view.

Second point is that our system works and this case proves it. The court ruled the "BUSH ADMINISTRATION" not Bush himself. Also this is normal checks and balances and why it's in place.

Let me give you an example. When there was civil rights and that Jim Crow laws violated the constitution did anyone go to jail over it? No...even though the law was found to be unconstitutional.

Our system is designed in a manner that if one branch makes a faux pax then another branch can CORRECT it...yes correct it not prosecute it.

Maybe you need to look up the word rebuke.

http://www.answers.com/rebuke&r=67

[sbannon]

Mayberry, I absolutely disagree with your assessment. This is where the beauty of the free market can be utilized for the common good, as it has in the past in similar fashions.

You don't ban older technologies and energy methods, nor force conversions at the threat of law. You simply provide huge incentives (tax credits/breaks, access for government contract bidding and etc.) for individuals and businesses alike who convert to newer and more efficient technologies on their own. You also begin charging (some call this penalizing, it's semantics and subjective to what point of view you chose), you begin charging individuals and businesses who don't convert on their own premium usage fees and taxes to cover the general public's costs of combating the pollutants being caused by the use of the older technologies and resources. It's the same reasoning states use to place extended taxes on ciggarettes, to cover the additional heath care costs associated with smoking.

Now, here's where the free market really shines: when government policy leads the masses to using a specific new technology or fuel source, that creates demand. In a free market, demand breeds competition which leads to competitive pricing and ultimately lower and affordable costs to the end user consumers.

Want an example of the effect on pricing of new technologies high demand has? Look at any Best Buy, CompUSA or Wal-Mart ad from the Sunday paper. Less than $400 can get you a laptop PC with more hard drive and memory than most normal people really need. 10 years ago a laptop with less than 1 GB of hard drive space and only 32MB of memory (which is less memory than most applications today will even run on) would cost you over $2,000.

In addition, since the U.S. is not the only polluter and will one day soon no longer be the largest, it should be noted that if we lead the way on this and let our great industry capabilities go to town to improve the capacity of alternative fuel technologies as well as lower the costs, it will be much easier to convince other growing nations to use them too.