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.
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
You'll get modded troll, but you're right. People have been forgetting the Online part of YRO for quite a while.
"While the president had broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws." This would seem to say that bypassing FISA for searches or refusing to enforce immigration laws is illegal.
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
I know you fucks are either trolls or think you're being "insightful" or "funny", but seriously,
stop it. Biologically active carbon is part of a recirculating cycle, mineralized carbon in fossil
fuels has been out of the cycle for a long time*, and adding it back in the form of CO2 is the
problem NOT BREATHING. However, if you seriously think breathing is a problem, then by all means,
do us all a favor and STOP. kthxbai
* And as an animal, that's a good thing. 20% atmospheric O2 is tasty.
Were that I say, pancakes?
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.
Most of the executive powers that make people "fear" Bush were in place during the Clinton administration.
Really? Clinton had the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons, tribunals, indefinite detentions w/o a trail or a lawyer, waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, etc etc?
That's why so much of the Democrat congress are acting so strangely: they want those laws, powers, and abuses in place when one of their own finally gets back in the White House.
Why are you so full of shit today, Brandybuck?
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.
So ... ONE BILLION PEOPLE driving cars and flying planes don't have an effect on CO2 levels ? Ok, you come back with "it's only a few percent of total emissions, if you also count volcanoes, emissions of animals and plants" I'll tell you this : The emissions of volcanoes, plants and animals have been taken care of by a billion year of evolution to balance emission/absorption of CO2. Now we're here and we screw the balance. What happens if you spend yearly 1% more than you earn ? In the long term ? Do the maths over 50 years for an income of 10000.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
You misunderstand the argument. The argument is not that people don't contribute to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The argument is about whether or not CO2 levels in the atmosphere are capable of driving climate change. It is, after all, a minor greenhouse gas (compared to, say, water vapor).
*sigh* back to work...
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.
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.