Supreme court to hear arguments on EPA regulation of CO2
The US Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments this week in the Massachusetts v. EPA global warming case. The case revolves around whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration has said that the EPA doesn't have any authority over carbon dioxide emissions. A coalition of thirty states, cities and other environmental organizations are challenging this ruling. The court's decision will determine if the EPA has authority over green-house gas emissions and also impacts the states that have adopted the California emissions rules. More information including the arguments and additional documentation are available at www.cleancarscampaign.org and clicking on "Court Action."
[Source: TheAutoChannel]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tom Visel 4:24PM (11/29/2006)
A darn good thing none of us exhale carbon dioxide. This might get ugly if we did! One must assume that the hopeful CO2 regulators are relying upon the research of esteemed Korean-Vietnamese physicist Sum Dum Phuc, who was the first to postulate that we should "regulate first, establish causality later."
Reply
Tim 6:46PM (11/29/2006)
Tttooooommm... I like this pppllanet.... whhy am III ttturning bbblue????........
Reply
Tom Visel 10:25AM (11/30/2006)
You are turning blue because energy is more expensive. This is the natural consequence of a dwindling supply in the face of an increasing demand. This has been recently been exacerbated when No One established a rigorous science of climate mechanics prior to giving Some One the power to take energy away from Every One within their grasp. Since No One had the foresight to exercise due diligence before goading Some One into action, Every One has to pay. Every One is now colder, poorer, worse off in every quantifiable way, and disenfranchised to boot. Meanwhile, No One (and his friends) gets more of the energy, money, and power that used to belong to Every One.
Reply