The EPA and the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court delivered the smackdown this past Monday to the Bush administration, by ruling against the EPA's refusal to offer an explanation as to why they are doing nothing to respond to global warming. The state of Massachusetts has long maintained that the EPA has a duty to confront the crisis, by regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is charged with reducing any emissions that could reasonably be determined to endanger public health. Carbon based contaminants cause global warming, so this should be cut-and-dry. But the EPA countered that it was under no mandate to issue regulations to confront climate change. They say that it isn't even "appropriate" for them to be playing such a role. They further point out Dubya's policy, which is to "favor technology investment" and "voluntary emissions reductions". This strategy relates to their overall economic plan, which is to give subsidies and no bid-contracts to large companies, and to generally kiss corporate ass at every opportunity.
If there is one body in government that Bush and Co. should be assured will bow to their will, it is the newly realigned Supreme Court. After all, Bush owes his presidency to the 2000 version- which had a similar makeup. As soon as I heard how this issue was decided, and that it was resolved with a 5-4 vote, I knew immediately what justices held the minority opinion. In fact it was a no brainer. The dissentors were Thomas, Roberts, Scalia and Alito. They are the "usual suspects"- the idealogues that seem hellbent on enabling the Bush administration to supersede the Constitution's emphasis on checks-and-balances.
Even though this decision gives some hope for environmentalists, it should be understood that the Supreme Court has not ordered the EPA to carry out its originally intended mission of protecting the environment. All that the Court is asking for is a "reasonable explanation" for their refusal to do so. While federal law has allowed states to put in place certain restrictions on environmental pollutants, automakers have challenged some laws in court, such as California's attempts to curb tailpipe emissions. But this case is significant in that the Supreme Court has suggested that carbon dioxide is indeed an environmental pollutant, and thus could be regulated by the EPA.
In similar news, the Supreme Court actually voted unanimously within the last week to uphold the EPA's mandate to insist upon the best available technology when outdated power stations seek to upgrade their facilities. The purpose of this is to reduce the incidence of acid rain as a result of sulfur dioxide. This decision was a major setback for Duke Energy in the Carolinas, who preferred business-as-usual to any sort of significant improvements in air quality. This is a good start toward forcing the EPA to do its job.
But the United States is the biggest contributer of greenhouse gases into the environment. If victory ultimately goes to those who make the argument that the Clean Air Act doesn't cover emissions that may harm the public health by way of global climate change, then we are doomed. There are still many in industry that make the claim that we shouldn't do anything until we know the "full extent" of the problem. Of course the only way to get to that realization is to do nothing until it is too late to do anything. It's way too easy for industry to make claims that the United States only accounts for a portion of greenhouse gasses in the world, and that it would put the US economy at a competitive disadvantage if it was placed under regulation. Yet I wonder how competitive the US economy will be when the oceans rise and we lose much of our existing coastline (including much of New York).
If there is one body in government that Bush and Co. should be assured will bow to their will, it is the newly realigned Supreme Court. After all, Bush owes his presidency to the 2000 version- which had a similar makeup. As soon as I heard how this issue was decided, and that it was resolved with a 5-4 vote, I knew immediately what justices held the minority opinion. In fact it was a no brainer. The dissentors were Thomas, Roberts, Scalia and Alito. They are the "usual suspects"- the idealogues that seem hellbent on enabling the Bush administration to supersede the Constitution's emphasis on checks-and-balances.
Even though this decision gives some hope for environmentalists, it should be understood that the Supreme Court has not ordered the EPA to carry out its originally intended mission of protecting the environment. All that the Court is asking for is a "reasonable explanation" for their refusal to do so. While federal law has allowed states to put in place certain restrictions on environmental pollutants, automakers have challenged some laws in court, such as California's attempts to curb tailpipe emissions. But this case is significant in that the Supreme Court has suggested that carbon dioxide is indeed an environmental pollutant, and thus could be regulated by the EPA.
In similar news, the Supreme Court actually voted unanimously within the last week to uphold the EPA's mandate to insist upon the best available technology when outdated power stations seek to upgrade their facilities. The purpose of this is to reduce the incidence of acid rain as a result of sulfur dioxide. This decision was a major setback for Duke Energy in the Carolinas, who preferred business-as-usual to any sort of significant improvements in air quality. This is a good start toward forcing the EPA to do its job.
But the United States is the biggest contributer of greenhouse gases into the environment. If victory ultimately goes to those who make the argument that the Clean Air Act doesn't cover emissions that may harm the public health by way of global climate change, then we are doomed. There are still many in industry that make the claim that we shouldn't do anything until we know the "full extent" of the problem. Of course the only way to get to that realization is to do nothing until it is too late to do anything. It's way too easy for industry to make claims that the United States only accounts for a portion of greenhouse gasses in the world, and that it would put the US economy at a competitive disadvantage if it was placed under regulation. Yet I wonder how competitive the US economy will be when the oceans rise and we lose much of our existing coastline (including much of New York).
posted by Merge Divide at 5:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home