Jim Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars. Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion. The court's four conservative justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 That's good news. It's about time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Yeah, time for states to start suing over this. Just watch, it'll happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Krugman or somebody had an editorial in the Times over the weekend where they were setting forth a fairly compelling story of how the Bush administration had oil company lobbyists editing scientific reports or policy reports based on science in order to make it sound like the case for global warming was uncertain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 shit bout time, the us car industry needs to catch up with the rest of the world, there is no reason for a new car to come on the market and not get 40mpg (in the city)and have low emissions we have the technologies already time to emplement them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dt_3pin Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion. The court's four conservative justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented. I understand that you pasted that quote from a news-service, but it is quite an overstatement. The court did not hold that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Instead, the Court held that EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Act, and that EPA's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide was arbitrary and capricious because its given reasons were not rooted in the statute itself. EPA must now either promulgate regulations establishing emission limitations for carbon dioxide or give a reasonsed explanation (based on the statute) why it won't establish such regulations. to Justice Stevens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 dont hold your breath .......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Krugman or somebody had an editorial in the Times over the weekend where they were setting forth a fairly compelling story of how the Bush administration had oil company lobbyists editing scientific reports or policy reports based on science in order to make it sound like the case for global warming was uncertain. Scientific American has been reporting that for the past 4 years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 dont hold your breath .......... No shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Krugman or somebody had an editorial in the Times over the weekend where they were setting forth a fairly compelling story of how the Bush administration had oil company lobbyists editing scientific reports or policy reports based on science in order to make it sound like the case for global warming was uncertain. Scientific American has been reporting that for the past 4 years! daah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZimZam Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Krugman or somebody had an editorial in the Times over the weekend where they were setting forth a fairly compelling story of how the Bush administration had oil company lobbyists editing scientific reports or policy reports based on science in order to make it sound like the case for global warming was uncertain. Scientific American has been reporting that for the past 4 years! One can only imagine the dasturdly manipulations machinating from his mousetrap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toast Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 We have an administration supported by idjuts who are still trying to deny the theory of evolution. What do you expect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 When it rains, it pours. Judge says administration acted illegally in supressing scientists in logging legislation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiller Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 i just started reading this book titled Thin Ice by Mark Bowen http://www.mark-bowen.com/book.html super interesting discusses global warming and talks about some of the studies that have gone on and are going on some of the the worlds largest (and quickly shrinking) glaciers anyways... just my 2 cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.