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

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.

 

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?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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

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

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(toypri05 @ Dec 17 2006, 09:33 AM) [snapback]363404[/snapback]</div>

There are already systems like this. I think the Koyoto Treaty, which I did not support but then no one asked me, mandates CO reductions and uses the idea of "pollution credits" to control it. A pollution credit is where you are given a certain level of pollutant you can spew, and if you spew less, you can sell the difference between your allotment and your "spewage".

<joke mode on>
Citizens are likely to get their normal breathing allotment plus a little more, then you start negotiating in the marketplace for credits to pollute more. For instance, the limousine liberal crowd, where each person consumes more than ten poor people, will allegedly be taxed at a higher rate. Poor people will start selling off their credits, rather than drive their beater car to work, as the combination of credits and welfare will be almost half what they could earn at their jobs, and who wants to work for half wages?
<joke mode off>

Politics and corruption always attend to these large programs, and I would rather see us hold automakers to average fuel economy stats for their fleets (and include all vehicles, this time), or some other US-based legislation. Pollution credits do work within industries, as you can have one iron smelter partially finance his smokestack scrubbers by selling the credits the cleaner effluent earns him to another smelter; the competitive disadvantage may encourage the second smelter to install the scrubbers. But I think you lose much of the impact when it is too diffuse and spread out among too many industries / individuals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(toypri05 @ Dec 17 2006, 01:33 PM) [snapback]363404[/snapback]</div>

This is just ridiculous hyperbole. Ads funded by Exxon tried to make this same silly point right when An Inconvenient Truth was coming out http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/18/new-ad...carbon-dioxide/. The suit does not call for "eliminating" CO2, merely regulating its use so we can be responsible. Drinking one glass of water is good for you. Drinking 10 gallons can kill you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication. Moderation is called for. What is so wrong with moderation?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 17 2006, 01:39 PM) [snapback]363422[/snapback]</div>

I haven't seen Inconvenient Truth, but just what little bit of read myself about CO2 and globabl warming has me worried about what we're leaving for my grandchildren. And I guess I'm getting old and cranky, and perhaps impatient, whatever, I'm definitely less tolerant of the bullshit like someone spewing about a CO2 tax on breathing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Dec 17 2006, 02:05 PM) [snapback]363484[/snapback]</div>

Read more on the subject and you'll get even more cranky. I do.

At 380ppm CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, it is indeed the highest its been in human lifetime. So when I read ignorant replies like the one by Toypri05 I can't help but shake my head at the lack of education in our society. We need to stop showing BS on the news and start putting the stuff that really matter on there so those not going to school can continue to learn.

As for the EPA. Can you really expect them to do the right thing when year after year the heads of each division are appointed by the Bush Admin. and regularly come from the oil industry or, currently, law firms that specialize in protecting gross polluting industries?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Dec 18 2006, 10:06 AM) [snapback]363827[/snapback]</div>

I think this is the key point. The EPA, being a cabinet level department in the executive branch, will always reflect the political party in power to some extent at that time. If Al Gore had won the election, the EPA would probably have looked at the legislation already passed and tried to come up with enforcement provisions.

Because the legislation empowering action by the various departments of the government is often vague as to the specifics, the bureaucrats in the departments decide how to implement the law (i.e., they are making the law, in effect). Its a basic problem with our system: the legislative branch should be making the laws specific enough so that there's no question as to what should be done. But politicians being what they are, its much easier to vote for a vague bill and if any constituents complain about some regulation that comes as a result of that, the Congresscritters can simply claim that the bureaucrats are "overreaching".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 18 2006, 08:42 PM) [snapback]364035[/snapback]</div>

Well said.

 

Perhaps, if we exterminate ourselves, that's the fate we deserve.

As Aristotle is reputed to have said, "What is, is somehow natural."

 

Way too much rhetoric gets thrown around. Whether you agree with climate change arguments or not, as identified by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, if you want to double your profit (or cut your cost by one-half), then double your efficiency. Because the Bush administration has a "profit at any cost" motive, we could have cut through all the smoke and mirrors a long time ago.