If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
High Court Tells EPA to Consider Global Warming Steps
The vote was,however 5 to 4, with the Neanderthal wing
of the court voting against Global Warming. In fact, it means little since there is no real will to do something concrete. And meanwhile, in Europe, the German madmen will continue to burn up the Autobahns at 240 km/hr. ***** High Court Tells EPA to Consider Global Warming Steps By Greg Stohr April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Bush administration environmental officials to reconsider their refusal to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, giving a boost to advocates of stronger action against global warming. The justices, voting 5-4, today said the Environmental Protection Agency didn't follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act in 2003 when it opted not to order cuts in carbon emissions from new cars and trucks. ``EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The ruling doesn't necessarily mean the EPA will have to impose new regulations. Still, it adds to growing pressure on the administration, which has resisted mandatory limits on carbon emissions. The decision is a setback for General Motors Corp. and other automakers and for utilities with coal-fired plants, including American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co. Environmentalists and 12 states, including California and Massachusetts, are seeking to force the federal agency to limit emissions from new cars and trucks. New York is leading a separate state effort to curb power-plant emissions. The decision also bolsters efforts by California and other states to enact their own climate-change regulations. In challenging those rules, automakers have pointed to the EPA's conclusion that carbon dioxide isn't an ``air pollutant'' subject to federal and state regulation under the U.S. Clean Air Act. The majority today rejected the agency's conclusion. ``Greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air pollutant,''' Stevens wrote. Four Dissenters Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Roberts said the court lacked constitutional power to second-guess the agency at the behest of states and environmental groups. The majority's reasoning ``has caused us to transgress the proper -- and properly limited -- role of the courts in a democratic society,'' he wrote. Scalia said the court ``has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.'' Environmentalists hailed the decision. ``The ruling is a total rejection of the Bush administration's refusal to use its existing authority to meet the challenge posed by global warming,'' Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director, said in a statement. United Nations Though having less than 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. produces 22 percent of the planet's man-made carbon- dioxide emissions, more than any other country, according to Energy Department figures. Earlier this year a United Nations panel concluded that global warming is ``unequivocal'' and that human activities are ``very likely'' the primary cause. The report forecast a rise in sea levels of 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Separately today, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas blasted the U.S. for ``having a negative attitude in international negotiations'' on climate change. ``It is absolutely necessary that they move,'' Dimas said. Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation to cap emissions. In January, five other U.S. power producers endorsed a proposal that would reduce emissions from electricity providers by 25 percent of projected levels by 2020. `Piecemeal' Approach The EPA said in 2003 that it wouldn't regulate greenhouse- gas emissions from new vehicles, pointing to ``substantial scientific uncertainty'' about the effects of climate change on human health and the environment and about the best means to address the issue. The Supreme Court today said that reasoning was insufficient to meet the statute's requirements. The Clean Air Act instructs the EPA to regulate air pollutants that ``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' ``If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so,'' Stevens wrote. The agency also said unilateral EPA regulation would undermine the president's ability to persuade developing countries to cut their emissions. Stevens said foreign policy considerations were for the State Department to assess, not the EPA. Standing to Sue In addition, the agency said Congress hasn't given it authority to regulate greenhouse gases, regardless of what the scientific evidence showed. The Bush administration said the Clean Air Act confers broad discretion on the EPA to decide whether to regulate. The government also contended that the states lack the legal standing to sue because they can't show they would reap any environmental benefit from EPA regulation. Stevens rejected that argument. He pointed to Massachusetts's contention that its coastline is already being damaged by rising sea levels. ``A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere,'' Stevens wrote. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Evleth crap + viruses
he german madmen have just one word for you and it begins with "Sch..." !
"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news: ... The vote was,however 5 to 4, with the Neanderthal wing of the court voting against Global Warming. In fact, it means little since there is no real will to do something concrete. And meanwhile, in Europe, the German madmen will continue to burn up the Autobahns at 240 km/hr. ***** High Court Tells EPA to Consider Global Warming Steps By Greg Stohr April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Bush administration environmental officials to reconsider their refusal to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, giving a boost to advocates of stronger action against global warming. The justices, voting 5-4, today said the Environmental Protection Agency didn't follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act in 2003 when it opted not to order cuts in carbon emissions from new cars and trucks. ``EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The ruling doesn't necessarily mean the EPA will have to impose new regulations. Still, it adds to growing pressure on the administration, which has resisted mandatory limits on carbon emissions. The decision is a setback for General Motors Corp. and other automakers and for utilities with coal-fired plants, including American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co. Environmentalists and 12 states, including California and Massachusetts, are seeking to force the federal agency to limit emissions from new cars and trucks. New York is leading a separate state effort to curb power-plant emissions. The decision also bolsters efforts by California and other states to enact their own climate-change regulations. In challenging those rules, automakers have pointed to the EPA's conclusion that carbon dioxide isn't an ``air pollutant'' subject to federal and state regulation under the U.S. Clean Air Act. The majority today rejected the agency's conclusion. ``Greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air pollutant,''' Stevens wrote. Four Dissenters Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Roberts said the court lacked constitutional power to second-guess the agency at the behest of states and environmental groups. The majority's reasoning ``has caused us to transgress the proper -- and properly limited -- role of the courts in a democratic society,'' he wrote. Scalia said the court ``has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.'' Environmentalists hailed the decision. ``The ruling is a total rejection of the Bush administration's refusal to use its existing authority to meet the challenge posed by global warming,'' Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director, said in a statement. United Nations Though having less than 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. produces 22 percent of the planet's man-made carbon- dioxide emissions, more than any other country, according to Energy Department figures. Earlier this year a United Nations panel concluded that global warming is ``unequivocal'' and that human activities are ``very likely'' the primary cause. The report forecast a rise in sea levels of 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Separately today, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas blasted the U.S. for ``having a negative attitude in international negotiations'' on climate change. ``It is absolutely necessary that they move,'' Dimas said. Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation to cap emissions. In January, five other U.S. power producers endorsed a proposal that would reduce emissions from electricity providers by 25 percent of projected levels by 2020. `Piecemeal' Approach The EPA said in 2003 that it wouldn't regulate greenhouse- gas emissions from new vehicles, pointing to ``substantial scientific uncertainty'' about the effects of climate change on human health and the environment and about the best means to address the issue. The Supreme Court today said that reasoning was insufficient to meet the statute's requirements. The Clean Air Act instructs the EPA to regulate air pollutants that ``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' ``If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so,'' Stevens wrote. The agency also said unilateral EPA regulation would undermine the president's ability to persuade developing countries to cut their emissions. Stevens said foreign policy considerations were for the State Department to assess, not the EPA. Standing to Sue In addition, the agency said Congress hasn't given it authority to regulate greenhouse gases, regardless of what the scientific evidence showed. The Bush administration said the Clean Air Act confers broad discretion on the EPA to decide whether to regulate. The government also contended that the states lack the legal standing to sue because they can't show they would reap any environmental benefit from EPA regulation. Stevens rejected that argument. He pointed to Massachusetts's contention that its coastline is already being damaged by rising sea levels. ``A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere,'' Stevens wrote. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
With Global Warming A Fact.... | Beavis and Butt-Head | USA & Canada | 164 | March 15th, 2007 05:13 PM |
Global Warming | Newby | Europe | 2 | March 13th, 2007 06:30 AM |
Global Warming--Absolutely! | [email protected] | Europe | 2 | February 12th, 2007 05:11 PM |
Global Warming Smear | Earl Evleth | Europe | 3 | February 9th, 2007 08:38 PM |
Global warming causes more allergies. | Earl Evleth | Europe | 4 | January 7th, 2005 10:29 PM |