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.

Comments

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[Mr2001]

What do you know about someone else's body inside yours? It is a different set of DNA. All you really need to know is that it's inside your body and you don't want it there. DNA doesn't enter into it at all; the whole argument of whether a fetus is a separate person is irrelevant, because even people don't have the right to set up camp inside other people.

If you woke up one morning and found Steve Ballmer living inside your body, throwing your organs around and sucking nutrients out of your blood, would you be morally obligated to let him keep living there until he decided to come out on his own?

Re:Enough Already...

[Beefslaya]

The Nazi's had a general consensus, but 95% of the population didn't have their beliefs.

I am not into fascism, trends or popular guesses.

Apparently 5 out of the 9 justices are into making environmental statements, and I have a serious issue with people legislating based on so-called "speculations, and scientific consensus".

Ice core samples from both arctic regions show great fluctuations in Global temps over the last million or so years, (long before humans and their gas guzzling SUV's).

I believe the ice cores more than your tree hugging, jet-setting hero, Al Gore.