Court to consider whether government must regulate carbon dioxide
(Supreme Court-AP) June 26, 2006 - The Supreme Court is setting the stage for what could be one of its most important decisions on the environment.
The high court Monday agreed to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide in order to combat global warming.
A dozen states, joined by a number of cities and some environmental groups, asked the court to take the case. A divided lower court ruled against them.
They say the Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act. They say that's because carbon dioxide is a pollutant, since it's the primary "greenhouse" gas causing a warming of the earth.
But the administration says carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant under the federal clean air law. And even if it were, the administration says, the EPA can decide whether to regulate it.
The high court Monday agreed to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide in order to combat global warming.
A dozen states, joined by a number of cities and some environmental groups, asked the court to take the case. A divided lower court ruled against them.
They say the Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act. They say that's because carbon dioxide is a pollutant, since it's the primary "greenhouse" gas causing a warming of the earth.
But the administration says carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant under the federal clean air law. And even if it were, the administration says, the EPA can decide whether to regulate it.
posted by Stephanie at
8:28 AM
5 Comments:
I can't believe my mom's main squeeze, that prof. of horticulture doesn't believe the causes of global warming are car pollution and coal burning. He thinks the reasons things are heating up is because we are paving over everything and concreet retains and accumulates heat. Mi madre was telling me that he doesn't believe that a global threat exists. Maybe I gave him more credit than I should have?
Seriously? That's bizarre...I would have thought he'd be smarter than that...
each to his own I guess...
I don't think it's an issue of intelligence or lack there of, I think it's an issue of political affiliation. To submit to the science of global warming is to submit the doctrine of the "liberal church". I think he's probably conservative, and even if they do believe the science of global warming they dismiss the urgency of fixing the problem as submitting to the liberal agenda and harming the economy.
I didn't realize he was conservative. I was thinking though, that his age might have something to do with it. The older you are the more stuck you are in your point-of-views (i.e. the more conservative...). Guess I was close, eh?
Yeah, I agree it's probably an age thing. He probably considers himself a "centrist" but as usual YOU are correct.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home