Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Says EPA Can Regulate Carbon
ThanatosMinor writes "In a 5-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, saying that the EPA's reasons for not doing so in the past were 'arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.' The ruling does not require the EPA to regulate carbon. But concerns about global climate change and its ties to human activity did appear to be deciding factors in the case." The AP coverage stresses that the ruling upholds the right of states to sue the Federal government over issues of global warming.
How is this Your Rights Online? How is it News for "Nerds" ?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
What do nine old farts (gender neutral term to keep up with the times) know about climate science? Apparently as much as Leonarda Dicaprio and John Travolta. Enough to be dangerous.
Dark Reflection
Quote from the article's author: I'm no legal scholar, but it sounds as if, by declaring that the EPA's case was weak, further defense of this matter (say in a future federal court case) would require either that the EPA come up with some compelling jurisdictional argument about why a substance in the atmosphere that could potentially harm humans isn't after all covered by the Clean Air Act I think the greater question is whether or not the Clean Air Act, or even the act which created the EPA, was Constitutional to begin with. The most direct example of this distinction can be found in a historical piece published by the NYTimes. As Congress does not possess power itself to make onsetments relative to the persons or property of citizens of the United States, in a Federal Territory, other than such as the Constitution confers, so it cannot constitutionally delegate any such powers to a Territorial Government, organized by it under the Constitution. Parallel, As Congress does not possess power itself to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, other than such as the Constitution confers, so it cannot constitutionally delegate any such power to a federal authority such as the EPA, organized by it under the Constitution.
In 1857 the SCOTUS did the right thing, politically, by affirming that the Federal Government does not have sweeping jurisdiction over anything which can be remotely rationalized as commerce The legal condition of a slave in the State of Missouri is not affected by the temporary sojourn of such slave in any other Sate, but on his return his condition still depends on the laws of Missouri.
As the plaintiff was not a citizen of Missouri, he, therefore, could not sue in the Courts of the United States. The suit must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If the transportation of a slave across state lines wasn't eligible for interstate commerce in 1857 then what has changed since then? A Constitutional Amendment was required, even a Civil War wasn't enough, for the slave trade to be considered "commerce". Where does the EPA derive its power from?
While it is a Good Thing that the slave population was officially outlawed (nevermind the gaping hole in the 13th Amendment which allows for a simple jaywalking ticket to make a person eligible for slavery), it is a Better Thing that our government be reminded, as often as possible, of the limitations on its power.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
...Carbon stated that the Supreme Court could "take a flying leap," insisting that SCOTUS should spend its time instead worrying about the dangers that Oxygen and Sodium present.
So...the author of the article linked says he hasn't seen a breakdown of who voted what...but the New York Times article that he linked to gave him the breakdown. Somebody hasn't been reading their sources.
I wonder how much the administration realized the unintended consequences of including a "laundry list" of reasons why they should not regulate emissions. Now they have a sentence like this in a SCOTUS decision:
"While the president had broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."
This might so come back to haunt them as precedent.
The two agencies, the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, are a form of corporate welfare to Big Oil. When Big Oil wants to destroy the environment in a third world country, banks shy away due to political instability. In steps the U.S. government to provide taxpayer-guaranteed loans.
The lawsuit is over the narrow issue of that these agencies did not do environmental impact studies in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Now that the Supreme Court has already ruled that carbon dioxide may be classified as a pollutant, the district court that is deciding the Big Climate Lawsuit must follow precedence.
I would rather have seen OPIC and Ex-Im dismantled over the fundamental reasons they are wrong: unconstitutional, corporate welfare, exploitation of third world countries, and destruction of the environment directly attributable to oil drilling and transport. But as is usually the case, the strongest legal case does not necessarily correlate to the strongest moral/ethical case.
We feel deeply betrayed. We thought SCOTUS was made up of your, and our, friends. Up til now you've had the support of Republicans controlling both houses. Surely you could have stacked the court with some more compliant judges. George, we are bitterly disappointed.
Your deeply distressed friends,
The Oil Industry
Holding: Carbon dioxide is a pollutant...emissions can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Perverse Outcome: Administrative rules could make it illegal to breathe.
Alternative Constitutional Theory to Challenge the Ruling: Tension between First Amendment and Commerce Authority since it is necessary to breathe in order to speak freely.
Alternatively, massive new entitlement programs may be funded by requiring the purchase of respiratory carbon credits.
Next year: Increasing the entropy of the surroundings will constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act. Do your part to limit your entropy footprint.
Oh boy, now the EPA can regulate breathing, how often, how much, how deeply.
All those mammals...they just gotta go.
I can answer that question, they analyze the amount of carbon expelled from the establishment then the send Mike Moore over to breath on them heavily for about a week. See how they like it.
Task Mangler
How is this Your Rights Online?
It's really "The Courts". (Unfortunately that seems to be lumped into YRO.)
How is it News for "Nerds" ?
- It's regulation of tech.
- It's related to science.
- It's going to require major technological innovation.
- It's likely to drastically affect nerds' ability to use technology and/or energy.
Just for starters
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If you live long enough, you get to soil your pants and they have to clean it up.
Be a little careful about "poison is the cost of progress". Nearly everyone thinks vaccines are a good thing, even though a very small percentage of people have a reaction. Certain technologies, such as sanitation, have significant environmental costs, even though as a whole they save millions of lives.
You don't get out much, do you? Or maybe you know better, and that's why you're posting this trash AC?
It's quite clear this EPA decision doesn't affect your abilities online in the least. Someone needs to remind the editors what their own site is for. It's slipped into SlashKos, news for liberals. News that matters to lefties.
So I say lets open a big bottle of it in his office while he's there.
When (if?) he wakes up, let's ask him again if he thinks CO2 is a pollutant...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I know that many of you are cheering that the SCOTUS turned Green and environmentalist, but that's not the case. This ruling isn't about global warming, or carbon, or even Al Gore's haircut. The ruling merely says that an executive department must stay within the bounds of a legislative statute. That the department happens to be the EPA and the statute the Clean Air Act is merely incidental.
To quote: "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I've had it up to here (pointing to my forhead, which coincidentally matches the snowfall this abnormally cold year) with this "global warming" crap.
I'm tired of scientific and humanistic arrogance and ignorance, costing me and the rest of the world money, time, ink, airwaves, and bandwidth.
There is NO scientific, or factual proof that it is caused by HUMAN influence. Warming and cooling of the globe has been occurring LONG before humans where even on this planet.
If you believe in global warming, LEAVE and create your own bubble, count your own carbon footprints and live in it yourself.
Enough already. Be Gone.
sheesh.
If there is no basis for a government to have the power to do something, then the government doing that act is by definition both dictatorial and tyrannical.
Even if the act is what you implicitly call a "good idea".
Of course, one person's "good idea" may not be the same to someone else.
But who cares - YOU believe it's "good".
Something I've been wondering, being a biologist, is the direct impact on humans of the higher levels of CO2 itself (as opposed to indirect effects such as climate shifts).
Interestingly enough, humans don't have any way to sense the oxygen concentration in air. The air in a nitrogen filled room can feel perfectly fresh right up to the point where you get dizzy and pass out. Instead, we sense CO2 concentrations -- a room with normal levels of O2 but several percent CO2 will be distinctly unpleasant to breath. At about 1000ppm CO2 a room may start to feel stuffy.
I've heard of some projections () of 650-970 ppm CO2 by 2100. The change over time will certainly be too slow for anyone to notice, but I find it remarkable that we may be heading to the point where outdoor air will be as high in CO2 as what we now consider stale.
From Scalia's dissent: The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency. From Roberts' dissent: The realities make it pure conjecture to suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land...The mismatch suggests that petitioners' true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases--not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) ("[Standing] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action")...The limitation of the judicial power to cases and controversies "is crucial in maintaining the tripartite allocation of power set forth in the Constitution." http://tinyurl.com/yttruw
"When Big Oil wants to destroy the environment in a third world country"
Yeah, you probably believe every word of that, too, being such a sheltered dumbass twerp. The toughest thing you've ever had to do was to remember to ask customers if they wanted a hot applie pie with their meal. That difficult work got you your money for your weed while your Mommy and Daddy made sure your car payment was mailed in and your rent was up-to-date.
So be sure to let us know when your supply of tinfoil is running low so we can go buy aluminum stock...
And here I thought people who read slashdot put some credibility in the generally accepted views of the scientific community. Why, then, are we so hostile towards a positive decision in curbing global climate change?
It is bad law to legislate science and bad science that uses coercive law absent proof.
If the answer is "yes" then I know you are a libertarian, with a consistent, coherent political philosophy. I may disagree with you on some issues, but at least we can have a conversation. If the answer is "no" or, worse, "that's not my point, and it's more complex than that... (i.e. equivocating)" then I know that you're a conservative who cries for limited government only on those issues where he doesn't want the government to take action.
Drugs, prostitution, pornography, gay marriage, abortion--on these subjects conservatives are silent about the evils of big government. The environment, hate crimes, intelligent design, prayer in schools--on these subjects the conservatives wail as if liberty herself were being dismembered on the White House lawn whenever the government takes action.
So which is it? Libertarian or conservative?
The U.S. business climate is now F....d. Invest in India or China. They will be laughing all the way to the bank while we cut our own throats here.
This is what we get for cutting back on science requirements for our schools. A bunch of people who don't know the first thing about the carbon cycle making laws based on religious Voodoo.
we should have a limited federal government (9th, 10th) and limited state governments (14th), with the majority of power remaining with the people.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
It's not only the half-truths out there that are confusing people it's also the outright lies
that are pushing the agenda here. One of the dire warnings of the IPCC report is that Malaria
is going to leave the tropics and head up north.
Well if got news for you. Malaria goes where mosquitoes thrive and there have been epidemics
of it up north in sibiria(!) during the earliest soviet times. Watch the film "The Global Warming
Swindle" it also has a segment on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
"The global warming alarm is dressed up as science, but it's not, it's LIES."
I work in trading and saw these articles when I bumped onto this entry ... thought it could be interesting as it gives a different point of view ...
... although it has been reported that the EU has issued too large quotas rendering the system ineffective ...
Is carbon the new uranium ?
EU too lax on emission permits
For the ones who do not know the scheme, it forces emitters to buy contracts if they go over the quota allowed by the government and is supposed to give an incentive to the companies to modernize
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
.. to which I say.. Bollocks!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Come on mods, RTFA! SCOTUS is not so senile as to attempt to tell the EPA how to conduct science, they told them to do their fucking job and have given the states the legal standing to force them, (and one would assume all other federal agencies), to do so.
This decision emphatically supports the quaint little notion that "science informs politics". Regardless of what appears to be your own "dangerous" ignorance on the subject of climate science, arguing against the core message in this verdict is nothing short of anti-science drivel.
And WTF is with the abortion anaology, abortion is all about the individual, climate is all about our species.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I know that many of you are cheering that the SCOTUS turned Green and environmentalist, but that's not the case.[. . .] The ruling merely says that an executive department must stay within the bounds of a legislative statute.
Thank you for your condescending attitude. Your superior intelligence has been noted.
That video claims that CO2 trends follow temperature trends by 800 years, indicating that rises in CO2 are caused by raised temperatures, not the other way around.
I've heard this before, but never from a primary source. Can anyone direct me to the studies that support/refute this conclusion?
Right now all I have to go on is 2 videos (Gore's the Swindle video). I don't particularly trust either.
*sigh* back to work...
As opposed to, say, the Constitution?
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Fits perfectly, doesn't it ?
I think the SCOTUS just wants to be hip like everyone else in Hollywood. Fighting the man made global warming cause is hip. Like it or not, corporations are positioning themselves to profit off of any and all legislation against the carbon economy.
"then carbon dioxide emissions in one state interfere with the ability of another state to conduct commerce".
Great. Now prove that. Go.
I'm sure that doing a DNA test (very scientific) on the fetus would reveal two things:
1. Its DNA is 100% "homo sapiens", aka human.
2. Its DNA is different from the mother and the father. In fact, it is probably different from any of the other 6 billion human specimens on this planet, with only very slim chances of an exception (identical twins). It definitely isn't, and wasn't, part of another human that has just been discarded.
Simple biochemical analysis (also very scientific) would reveal that it has a functioning metabolism and is growing at an astounding rate, and is reacting to external stimuli to some degree (note that this means the cellular level). That means it is alive, by the commonly accepted definition. No jumping through hoops (as would be in the fringe cases of viruses) is required to come to this conclusion.
Common experience will tell that in less than nine months, it will be sufficiently developed to survive outside a womb.
There's very little philosophy about the above scientific facts.
A call is made from the White House...
"What sluggards, what cowards have I brought up in my court, who care nothing for their allegiance to their lord. Who will rid me of these meddlesome judges!"
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I am glad they didn't ask Scotus older brother Scrotum, as you might know he is nuts.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
I think the global-warming alarmists are merely anti-commerce zealots in disguise. But, if CO2 really is causing harm, then it seems silly that it wouldn't fall under the EPA's jurisdiction to regulate it.
Maybe this will cause an actual discussion of the facts instead of the media-proxy debate that we've had in the past.
I expect to be modded down again for another dissenting opinion, but such is the case when there is no good science to settle the argument either way. The mob applies leverage and attempts science by consensus (History shows that consensus has almost always started out wrong to begin with).
I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle [google video] AND Inconvienent Truth.
I have to say, other than a nice graph of carbon dioxide and temperature, the rest of the film was science by consensus. "90% of scientists now agree". Furthermore, Al only makes the statement that "the relationship between the [two lines] is a complicated one". With that one line, he avoids the actual science of global warming. It allows him to gloss over any kind of investigation of solar activity, dissolved CO2 levels in the oceans, the ratio of CO2 to other green house gasses. Yes, there is more than one, but Al never mentions that. Instead he only shows the PPM increase, and not a percentage increase. He also fails to go into why the upper atmosphere is not increasing in temperature whereas ground temps are (hint: solar radiation heats the ground more effectively than green house gasses)
What we have, and everyone has to admit this, is the only real correlation is our ability to measure CO2 in PPM, and an increase in temperatures (at the same time an increase in solar activity). Anyone with statistics experience will tell you correlation is not causation. We simply have to wait for the many factors to fluctuate so we can tease out the real relationship.
I love the environment and animals (I was going to be a park ranger), but I call BS (Bad Science) when I see it. How embarrassing will it be in 50 years, when we've passed a local solar maximum and things are back to normal? Until our confidence [and understanding] is so high in the matter, we shouldn't be legislating first and asking questions later.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Bush vowed to pwn the EPA anyway:
= /20070401/NATIONWORLD/704010403/-1/ZONES04 and note the following:
This ruling puts the EPA in charge of regulating auto emissions, not Congress, and not the States as had previously been the case. Now reconsider it in this context; http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID
"If necessary, said industry lobbyists and Republican aides in Congress, Bush intends to skirt the Senate approval process by making recess appointments to put the three nominees in the posts."
Lesson: When the street magician fingers the bright shiny coin in his right hand, keep your eyes on what the left one is doing...
You didn't respond to every sentence and accuse him of writing calumny! Who are you and what have you done to the real SmellyBumInLaJolla??
P.S. You're wrong, as usual. Grandparent post is accurate and factual.
says my climate professor[*]. The EPA quoted a 2001 scientific report as saying that "the rise in CO_2 levels was unlikely to be a result of human activity". Except that same report's first line reads "most likely", not "unlikely". And so the original report's authors got back together and wrote an amicus brief saying so.
S cience_SupremeCourt.htm
So they were informed by the best of today's climate scientists. They weren't deciding climate issues, they were deciding legal ones. Or did you want the climate scientists to decide the legal issues?
One of the people involved has this nice summary:
http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~inez/ClimateChange
[*] "It was obvious from what they wrote in the decision."
Without a welfare system extensive enough to make employment optional, people have a right to their job, because that job is the only thing enabling them to enjoy the right to LIVE. No job, no life. The right to life implies the right to a job. It's that or socialism -- take your pick. Frankly, workers' rights seems a lot more plausible at this point in history.
Murder is illegal and unconstitutional, no matter profitable it happens to be. Whether it's dumping mercury into the air and water, causing floods and landslides by clear-cutting, or deliberately inducing catastrophic planet-wide climate change, no one has the right to commit murder.
Your post describes the traditional role of the "public service", the "service" they are supposed to provide to the "public" is to answer the quesetions of elected policy makers, "to report the facts without fear or favour". A "good" politician simply knows which questions to ask and which answers to advertise, a "bad" politician will repeatedly shoot the messengers until the "correct" answer arrives. SCOTUS is forcing the EPA to adhear to that tradition.
/sarcasm
"If you were interested in the real world...Unfortunatly, scientists are more worried about getting an easy federal grant than they are about the long term future of science."
Every researcer knows that the "tooth fairy" is the one who funds the bulk of scientific research, the government is well down the list, below the "easter bunny", "santa" and "the back of a truck". The equation is brutally competitive, no sponsor = no science = no job, I am sure you will recognise the concept from your occasional trips to the "real world".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The worst aspect of this decision is not just that five aging lawyers have taken it upon themselves to determine for every scientist and engineer in the country what causes global climate change, and what they should do about it.
No, the worst part is that they have given legal standing to state AGs and "non-profit" groups to stick their hands into the pockets of the federal government and big business and grab our money to use in furthering their own ends (world domination?).
With no proof of injury, and no clear proof that CO2 is responsible for any damage whatsoever, the court has given the green light to all sorts of nuisance lawsuits.
[sigh] . . . Oh well, at least the slip-and-fall lawyers will have something to do, now that the asbestos well is running dry and silicone breast implants are OK again.
The most beautiful thing that a federal level politician could learn to say would be,"I'm sorry ma'am, that's just not within my jurisdiction." Since campaign promises are profitable, though, eventually some of those people come calling after election time. Congress has a demonstrated history of passing laws which, right wrong or indifferent, are plain outside the scope of their legal jurisdiction. The single constant over the last 200 years is that Congress has been, slowly and methodically, illegally expanding its scope of powers by legislatively giving authority, which it never had to begin with, to third parties--usually by the simple act of providing the funding.
If that much isn't clearly obvious to you then you have only the carefully regulated educational industry to blame for your narrow field of comprehension.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac