SCOTUS

(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, including Rhode Island, 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.

Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. It is the principal "greenhouse" gas that many scientists believe is flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, leading to a warming of the earth and widespread ecological changes. One way to reduce those emissions is to have cleaner-burning cars.

The Bush administration intends to argue before the court on Wednesday that the EPA lacks the power under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The agency contends that even if it did have such authority, it would have discretion under the law on how to address the problem without imposing emissions controls.

The states, led by Massachusetts, and more than a dozen environmental groups insist the 1970 law makes clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant — much like lead and smog-causing chemicals that is subject to regulation because its poses a threat to public health.

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, plunging for the first time into the politically charged debate over global warming. The ruling next year is expected to be one of the court's most important ever involving the environment.

"Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time and the decision by the court on this case will make a deep and lasting impact for generations to come," says Massachusetts' attorney general, Thomas Reilly.

David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the Sierra Club, says a legal clarification of the EPA's authority could determine whether the current administration must regulate carbon dioxide emissions and whether a future one will be able to demand such limits.

At issue for now is pollution from automobiles. But the ruling indirectly may affect how the agency deals with carbon dioxide that comes from electric power plants.

In a separate lawsuit, the EPA says the Clean Air Act also prevents it from regulating such emissions from those plants. That claim would be undercut, Bookbinder says, if the high court rules in the states' favor in the auto emissions case.

President Bush has rejected calls to regulate carbon dioxide. He favors voluntary steps by industry and development of new technologies to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

"We still have very strong reservations about an overarching, one-size-fits-all mandate about carbon," James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, recently told a group of reporters.

The administration says in court papers 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 ways are available to tackle climate change.

The United States accounts for about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of carbon dioxide from U.S. motor vehicles, power plants and other industry has increased on average by about 1 percent a year since 1990.

Now that Democrats will control the House and Senate in January after their election victories this month, there is expected to be increased pressure in Congress for mandatory limits on carbon emissions.

The election results "have signaled a need to change direction" on dealing with global warming, three Democratic senators who will play leading roles on environmental issues recently wrote the president.

But whether there is such a shift actually may depend, in the end, on the Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs in the suit are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They were joined by cities such as Baltimore, New York and the District of Columbia; the Pacific island of America Samoa; the Sierra Club; the Union of Concerned Scientists; Greenpeace; and Friends of the Earth.

The case is Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120.

[Jasonian18]

one missed post after the one referring to iraq at the end that states how on earth would the democrats have handled it don't do anything then after we sit around waiting for biological weapons to obliterate say new york city while we all sit and wait for the next movie called maybe what happened to New York City or new york dream or legend? you get my point all the Democrats wanted to do was find something else to argue about and make republicans look bad but need i remind the democrats that they are just as bad they just didn't have power at the time and had we not gone to war we would have blamed bush for the alleged bio bombs blowing up other parts of the US and killing millions heck if they could figure it out they could blow up a plane in mid air in a jetstream and send one bio bomb all across America killing not only thousands not only millions i wouldnt be surprised if many Americans were left to inhabit what would then be a doomed America

[Jasonian18]

granted if the democrats want to make a difference and the republicans will work with them so be it may they work together and bring about great success and hopefully an end the bickering about withdrawing soldiers how come is it that when you hear the parents who are over worrying about our men saying to bring them home but the soldiers themselves say they are being withdrawn to quickly and are being pulled out to quickly causing instability in the ranks and things like(under protected) due to body amour and such caused by early redeployment. now granted i do want our people out of Iraq just as much as anyone else but not at the risk of American lives! granted we have faced a new kind of warrior one who has no care for their own well being allowing for merciless and suicidal attacks on humanity. we cannot go to war in the expectations to come back before we or Iraq is ready. as soon as Americans leave Iraq there will be unrest the Sunni soldiers and the Shiite Muslims will go at it again and more atrocities will be committed but at least Saddam Hussein is out of power and their people now have another chance to start over and bring their country back together and bring it to new prosperity.
~:This has been a Republican comment by Jason_P.L.O.:~

[Jasonian18]

the currents may change the icecaps temperature enough for that but that all depends on tectonic activity and i personally haven't studied the area enough to know what can be done regarding tectonic shifts. But i'm also not saying we shouldn't do anything about the problem of polluting the atmosphere because it causes various other problems such as the killing of fish and such which hurts American and world industry and economy. not to mention it is also hurting agricultural fields as well. America is a player not a major or minor one but just a player in the whole issue with pollution. and a lot could be done regarding the issue power there are more beneficial ways to produce power some we haven't even yet explored and i hate it when people bash bush those people are truly and excuse my language but they are moronic granted i know that it has become acceptable in society today to mudsling, but seriously there has been an all time high this year not to mention not everything is Bush's fault and i would like to point out would it have been better that we not go to war in Iraq?

[Jasonian18]

the tectonic plate activity changes the flow of the ocean currents even slightly and thereby causing a shift in temperature and climates this is not something new just ask any oceanographer about it in concordance with a seismologist and they will tell you how tectonic activity has an affect on the oceanic currents and ask a weather man anything about the current's change and you'll also see how it coincides with different storms and weather activity. global warming in essence is a myth unless you look at it in large scale in other words ...in the next thousands of years we'll have a hole maybe an inch larger then it is now changing absolutely nothing in the weather patterns or causing worry about the icecaps melting causing international flooding.

[Jasonian18]

ok i agree with the US is good ( "good") guy anyways my opinion on the global warming issue is stop making it appear bigger then it is seriously!!! im sick of listening to the television say on various ads and issues how global warming is going to destroy the world thats ABSURD global warming is no more than the belief that the hole in the ozone which doesn't grow that quickly at all not even on noticeable proportions to the point where the plants which give off ozone patch it at a similar rate keeping the hole from getting to any dangerous proportions they have been using the change in hurricane seasons and such as the basis for their argument but the only thing causing the weather pattern differential is tectonic plate activity!

[glidescube]

The USA makes the most pollution because we are the wealthiest soicety on earth. The other nations point fingers at us and complain, but how come not one of them threaten us with an embargo?

How well would it go for Kenya or Germany or , heaven forbid, China is these nations would stop selling us the things that cause all this pollution? Can you imagine Germany refusing to sell us BMWs because when Americans drive them they pollute the air, or China not selling us Plasma TVs because the power plants to power them release too much CO2?

So ,from an Ameircan to thw world. If you guys give a *** baout global warming then stop selling us your ***!!

[finewoven]

Well cbscrash07, that seems a bit defeatist. Let's see if there is a more positive way of approaching this. It is a known aspect of nature through science of "conservation of energy," which states that all energy is in the process of changing into some other form. Maybe our error is not being willing to change as the factors around us change. Nawh, that's too basic. Do you think there are a bunch of people in our society who simply won't change when a better technology arrives on the scene?

[olebd]

I would gladly drive a horse and buggy if everybody else would.

I quit smoking long ago.
I gave up high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated foods.

I'd be the perfect citizen in other countries apparently:)

[pakaal]

I wish people would get off the US' case about global warming. I mean, we've got more important things to be doing, like keeping the Middle East unstable and eroding Constitutional rights. Global warming will take care of itself!

And all of us with it.

[Syndicate]

Maybe this is just the Earths way of trying to kill us off. Should we really interfere.