High court to hear global warming case-Must Bush Change Course on Global Warming

hb06 · 11-26-2006, 04:24 PM

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming."

"A dozen states as well as environmental groups and large cities are trying to convince the court that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of public health, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles."

"The states and more than a dozen environmental groups insist the 1970 law makes clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that is subject to regulation because its poses a threat to public health."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...l-warming_x.htm

Schmika · 11-26-2006, 09:07 PM

GGGAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! OMG, the US Supreme COurt?????????????

PLEASE find a reason to claim "lack of jurisdiction". I am hoping for, at the least, that this will fall into "discretionary" decisions solely at the executive branch's feet.

SSimon · 12-01-2006, 04:14 PM

The EPA was organized to respond to and to resolve broad spectrum environmental problems. They, then, should be responsible for the regulation, control and adherence of our national greenhouse gas emission levels. They identify climate change on their website and specifically cite greenhouse gases as the cause. And while they recognize that some of these greenhouse gases are naturally occurring, they also recognize that some of these are emitted solely from human activity. The latter are the gases that they should be regulating. If they cannot be accountable to the public by their own initiative, their negligence should be reviewed by a higher authority. If it takes a lawsuit to initiate this review, that's fine by me.

The Supreme Court must recognize that this may be a valid case or they wouldn't have agreed to hear it, no?

**TonyPSchaefer** · 12-01-2006, 04:41 PM

The Environmental Protection Agency.
Global Warming is an environmental issue.

If only there were a way to connect the two.

Schmika · 12-01-2006, 09:53 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Dec 1 2006, 06:41 PM) [snapback]356405[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

The Environmental Protection Agency.
Global Warming is an environmental issue.

If only there were a way to connect the two.
[/b]

The EPA, an executive appointed organization..VERY political....not the best group to handle this.

etyler88 · 12-04-2006, 12:15 PM

How about an update. Anybody know when the decision will be revealed? Is there a good bet for what the decision will be?

SSimon · 12-04-2006, 01:20 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Dec 1 2006, 10:53 PM) [snapback]356527[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

The EPA, an executive appointed organization..VERY political....not the best group to handle this.
[/b]

The protection of the environment is the EPA's job. You are a police officer. Is it a good argument that a police officer is unable to halt crime (or at least make an effort) due to the "office" politics encountered by an officer? This is silly.

hb06 · 12-04-2006, 06:58 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Dec 4 2006, 09:15 AM) [snapback]357419[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

How about an update. Anybody know when the decision will be revealed? Is there a good bet for what the decision will be?
[/b]

According to the referenced article:
"A sharply divided federal appeals court ruled in favor of the government in 2005. But last June, the Supreme Court decided to take up the case."

"The ruling next year is expected to be one of the court's most important ever involving the environment."

toypri05 · 12-17-2006, 12:33 PM

If the supreme court rules that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, does that mean that we all have to stop breathing? Or will all have to start paying a "Breathing Tax"? What about all the animals in the world, how do we collect taxes from them? Or do we increase hunting quotas to draw down animal populations? If carbon dioxide emissions are dramatically decreased, what happens to plant life that depends on carbon dioxide to live? Who is representing the forests of the world in this lawsuit? I'm not sure that they would agree that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

Beryl Octet · 12-17-2006, 12:45 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(toypri05 @ Dec 17 2006, 12:33 PM) [snapback]363404[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

If the supreme court rules that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, does that mean that we all have to stop breathing? Or will all have to start paying a "Breathing Tax"? What about all the animals in the world, how do we collect taxes from them? Or do we increase hunting quotas to draw down animal populations? If carbon dioxide emissions are dramatically decreased, what happens to plant life that depends on carbon dioxide to live? Who is representing the forests of the world in this lawsuit? I'm not sure that they would agree that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
[/b]

You can pay now, or you can pay later. Plenty of CO2 for the forests, though, btw, highest CO2 levels in 650,000 years...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
High-profile global warming skeptic changes position	Mirza	Environmental Discussion	78	06-06-2008 08:27 PM
Bush administration finally in trouble for censoring scientists on global warming	JackDodge	Environmental Discussion	1	01-31-2007 09:47 AM
The Supreme Court, Global Warming, and Our Cars-Update	hb06	Environmental Discussion	0	12-20-2006 09:10 PM
Bush on global warming	larkinmj	Fred's House of Pancakes	0	07-20-2006 09:44 PM
Supreme Court Tackles Global Warming	eyeguy13	Environmental Discussion	0	06-27-2006 12:48 PM

11-26-2006, 04:24 PM	#1
hb06 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 480 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming." "A dozen states as well as environmental groups and large cities are trying to convince the court that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of public health, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles." "The states and more than a dozen environmental groups insist the 1970 law makes clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that is subject to regulation because its poses a threat to public health." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...l-warming_x.htm

11-26-2006, 09:07 PM	#2
Schmika Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Xenia, OH Posts: 1,622 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	GGGAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! OMG, the US Supreme COurt????????????? PLEASE find a reason to claim "lack of jurisdiction". I am hoping for, at the least, that this will fall into "discretionary" decisions solely at the executive branch's feet.

12-01-2006, 04:14 PM	#3
SSimon Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: N/W of Chicago Posts: 1,246 My Car: 2006 Prius Package: #4 Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 3	The EPA was organized to respond to and to resolve broad spectrum environmental problems. They, then, should be responsible for the regulation, control and adherence of our national greenhouse gas emission levels. They identify climate change on their website and specifically cite greenhouse gases as the cause. And while they recognize that some of these greenhouse gases are naturally occurring, they also recognize that some of these are emitted solely from human activity. The latter are the gases that they should be regulating. If they cannot be accountable to the public by their own initiative, their negligence should be reviewed by a higher authority. If it takes a lawsuit to initiate this review, that's fine by me. The Supreme Court must recognize that this may be a valid case or they wouldn't have agreed to hear it, no?

12-01-2006, 04:41 PM	#4
TonyPSchaefer Ruler of Omicron Persei 8 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Far-North Chicagoland Posts: 8,013 My Car: 2004 Prius Package: #9 Nominated 4 Times in 2 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 14	The Environmental Protection Agency. Global Warming is an environmental issue. If only there were a way to connect the two.

12-04-2006, 12:15 PM	#6
etyler88 etyler88 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dover, DE Posts: 448 My Car: 2005 Prius Package: #3 Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	How about an update. Anybody know when the decision will be revealed? Is there a good bet for what the decision will be?

12-17-2006, 12:33 PM	#9
toypri05 Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	If the supreme court rules that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, does that mean that we all have to stop breathing? Or will all have to start paying a "Breathing Tax"? What about all the animals in the world, how do we collect taxes from them? Or do we increase hunting quotas to draw down animal populations? If carbon dioxide emissions are dramatically decreased, what happens to plant life that depends on carbon dioxide to live? Who is representing the forests of the world in this lawsuit? I'm not sure that they would agree that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.