FutureGM Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 MSNBC.com- WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court?s most important decisions on the environment. The decision means the court will address whether the administration?s decision to rely on voluntary measures to combat climate change are legal under federal clean air laws. ?The Supreme Court has seen the importance of this case and will now have an opportunity to address the most significant environmental issue of our generation," said Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, whose state is one of 12 challenging the Bush administration. ?This is the whole ball of wax. This will determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency is to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and whether EPA can regulate carbon dioxide from power plants,? added David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club. Bookbinder said if the court upholds the administration?s argument it also could jeopardize plans by California and 11 other states, including most of the Northeast, to require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. There was no immediate comment from either the EPA or White House on the court?s action. ?Fundamentally, we don?t think carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and so we don?t think these attempts are a good idea,? said John Felmy, chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing oil and gas producers. The dozen states, a number of cities and various environmental groups asked the court to take up the case after a divided lower court ruled against them. They argue that the Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act because as the primary ?greenhouse? gas causing a warming of the earth, carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The administration maintains that carbon dioxide ? unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to assure healthy air ? is not a pollutant under the federal clean air law, and that even if it were the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it. A federal appeals court sided with the administration in a sharply divided ruling. One judge said the EPA?s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide was contrary to the clean air law; another said that even if the Clean Air Act gave the EPA authority over the heat-trapping chemical, the agency could choose not to use that authority; a third judge ruled against the suit because, he said, the plaintiffs had no standing because they hadn?t proven harm. Carbon dioxide, which is released when burning fossil fuels such as coal or gasoline, is the leading so-called ?greenhouse? gas because as it drifts into the atmosphere it traps the Earth?s heat ? much like a greenhouse. Many scientists cite growing evidence that this pollution is warming the Earth to a point of beginning to change global climate. At the heart of the climate debate is whether carbon dioxide releases should be controlled by emission caps on power plants and requiring motor vehicles to become more fuel efficient, therefore burning less fuel and producing less carbon dioxide. President Bush, when first running for president, expressed support for regulating carbon dioxide, but he reversed himself shortly after getting into office ? saying he was convinced that voluntary plans to curtail carbon were a better way to go and mandatory regulation would be too expensive for business. In 2003, the EPA?s top lawyer concluded that the agency lacked the authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, reversing a legal opinion issued several years earlier by the Clinton administration and prompting the lawsuit. ?If ever there was a case that warranted Supreme Court review this is it,? said Reilly. In their appeal, the states argued that the case ?goes to the heart of the EPA?s statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time? ? the threat of global warming. The administration countered that the EPA should not be required to ?embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain task of addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions? when other, voluntary ways to address climate change are available. In addition to Massachusetts and California, the states are Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They were joined by a number of cities including Baltimore, New York City and Washington D.C., the Pacific island of America Samoa, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth. The case is Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legacyofCangelosi Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 This is very scary when the states ar eusing the judicial system to force federal regulation. Not arguing on the merits of Bush's plan or of the opinion of the state of massachusetts on this issue, it is a smack in the face to our dual system of government and to freedom if the court holds for the 12 states. Hopefully the court will see the inconsistencies in the balance of power, and will shut down this power grab by those 12 states. If they want to regulate within their own states, go ahead but forcing the feds to do it. Very scary stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I don't know, there SHOULD be federal regulations for this kind of stuff. They have the best means to study this crap and make business do it. If it's ruining our air, our lakes and streams than I think the government should step in and say, "Look, what you're doing is ruining the environment and we're going to have to find a way to regulate your output." Work with the businesses to make it so they're not making such a mess while continuing to meet production goals. I don't think it's that much to ask... As for global warming itself, I will say I'm on the fence as of right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legacyofCangelosi Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I don't know, there SHOULD be federal regulations for this kind of stuff. They have the best means to study this crap and make business do it. If it's ruining our air, our lakes and streams than I think the government should step in and say, "Look, what you're doing is ruining the environment and we're going to have to find a way to regulate your output." Work with the businesses to make it so they're not making such a mess while continuing to meet production goals. I don't think it's that much to ask... As for global warming itself, I will say I'm on the fence as of right now. That the govt should regulate emissions does not make the power grab by a minority of the states constitutional. Possibly a good idea, but I feel 12 states imposing their will on the federal govt and the other 38 states by use of the judicial system is unconstitutional b/c of the supremacy clause Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I don't know, there SHOULD be federal regulations for this kind of stuff. They have the best means to study this crap and make business do it. If it's ruining our air, our lakes and streams than I think the government should step in and say, "Look, what you're doing is ruining the environment and we're going to have to find a way to regulate your output." Work with the businesses to make it so they're not making such a mess while continuing to meet production goals. I don't think it's that much to ask... As for global warming itself, I will say I'm on the fence as of right now. That the govt should regulate emissions does not make the power grab by a minority of the states constitutional. Possibly a good idea, but I feel 12 states imposing their will on the federal govt and the other 38 states by use of the judicial system is unconstitutional b/c of the supremacy clause Meh, if they can prove it's beneficial to us in the long-run, or the current rate it's harmful I'm all for it. But they have the burden of proof on their shoulders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fyatuk Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Meh, if they can prove it's beneficial to us in the long-run, or the current rate it's harmful I'm all for it. But they have the burden of proof on their shoulders. Well, they not only have to prove that carbon dioxide is a harmful agent (which since global warming still hasn't been proven to be caused by man could be tough), they have to prove that that is enough to qualify it as a pollutant, and that the EPA is legally obligated to regulate it. My guess is that the states will lose the case because of the fact that man-made, CO2 based global warming has not been conclusively proven. I'll laugh if all these people end up doing is challenging the constitutionality of the EPA to exist (watch the judges decide regulating pollutants isn't enough to qualify as the "general welfare" therefore the agency violates the 10th amendmnet ). And of course what's really funny is in the past few years the US has done a better job of handling CO2 emissions than most Kyoto countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fyatuk Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 If they crack down on automobile emissions you can expect gas prices to go up. It depends on how they do it. If they demand fuel additives as a way of combatting emissions, then yes, fuel prices will go up in most places. If the demand stronger built in controls (they'd have to grandfather existing cars and give a year or two advance notice), then the price of cars and vehicle inspections or registrations will go up, but gas won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishfan79 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 If they crack down on automobile emissions you can expect gas prices to go up. I expect gas prices to go up for every single possible reason they can think of. How else will texico's billionare ownership feed their families? Strangling the middle class' wealth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureGM Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 Oil companies will do their best to milk every possible excuse while raising their prices. There was no natural disaster or global crisis that caused gas prices to move to an average of about $2.90 a gallon in this country. I could understand somewhat after Katrina damaged the Texas refineries, but not when it wasn't even hurricane season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.