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

Nine old guys (and gals)

[OakDragon]

What was it the abortion people used to say? What do nine old dudes in robes know about my body?

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.

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[shark swooner]

RTFA:

Note that the supreme court dodged a bullet by not basing their decision on the question of the validity of anthopogenic global warming. As the New York Times reported:

In sending the case back for further proceedings, Stevens said the high court did not decide which policy the EPA must follow. "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute," he wrote.

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[OakDragon]

Sorry, I can't read the article if I expect to get my post read by people who encourge me to RTFA.

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[JeanPaulBob]

To my "IANAL" understanding, parents are certainly legally responsible to care and provide for their children, but children's responsibilities to their parents are somewhat...less than symmetrical.

Hmm. An amusing image just occurred to me, of parents suing their children for adversely affecting their financial well-being and causing stress and emotional turmoil...By the very fact of their existence.

It would be funnier if it were a bit further from being believable, though.

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[theodicey]

Actually, it's pretty much only Scalia who thinks he's smart enough to evaluate climate change. He got smacked down in oral argument:

"Scalia observes that there is a difference between an "air pollutant" and a "stratospheric pollutant." Milkey interrupts: "Respectfully, Your Honor. It is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere."

No change

[HomelessInLaJolla]

The Supreme Court is, as has been their policy for nearly 100 years, ignoring the greater question of jurisdiction while focusing on the lesser aspects.

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.

Re:No change

[Qzukk]

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.

You're absolutely right. We should abolish the Clean Air Act, then all the other environmental regulations and finally the EPA and then start arresting factory workers and operators for assault by poisoning.

Because just like the GPL is the only thing that gives people the right to copy GPL software, the EPA and Clean Air Act and the like is the only thing that gives companies and people the right to poison each other with impunity. Maybe when the corporate leaders have to face jail time for poisoning (or even manslaughter) they'll stop crying and sobbing about how hard it is to only give cancer to one in a million people (along with the other 999,999 companies). Don't tell me poison is the cost of progress, either, unless the corporate executives are offering to pay the price themselves instead of forcing it on everyone else.

Re:No change

[Comatose51]

Well, if you believe what most economists believe, which is things like pollution is considered externality and the cost of production, then air pollution would fall under commerce. This is especially true considering the fact that you can trade carbon credits and can actually monetize carbon or the lack of carbon emission.

Re:No change

[aldousd666]

I'd agree the owners are to blame, but damnit, people who work for someon in business should not get a say in it. They are paid by the company because there is stuff for them to do, not because it wants to give them a job. If you don't like your job in the factory, quit, but you DON'T get a say in it. You can complain that it's unsafe, you can get them to fix that, but you cannot say what should and shouldn't be done in general, that's why they PAY you, to do what you're TOLD. Start your own factory and hire people if you want to make the rules. Follow the laws, yes the owners have to do that, provide fair and safe conditions for workers, sure, that's important too, and to make sure that nobody dies, of course, but make the workplace an all out democracy? Hell no. It's nobody's 'right' to work anywhere. And certainly it's not up to the workers to create a workplace they 'like'.

Re:No change

[debrain]

Because just like the GPL is the only thing that gives people the right to copy GPL software, the EPA and Clean Air Act and the like is the only thing that gives companies and people the right to poison each other with impunity.

The problem with the CAA and EPA is not their end, but their means. A positive result does not justify abuse of process. If the CAA and EPA have powers beyond what is legitimate, and they are nevertheless recognized, what stops the same branches of power (be it Congress or the Executive or the judiciary) from abusing this same extension of authority for malicious purposes? The division and separation of powers exists for the purpose of preventing this abuse so that process is democratic and representative, and it does so reasonably well when respected.

Respect for the environment is a totally separate issue from respect for the mechanisms that prevent abuse. If people are poisoning each other, there are valid non-abusive mechanisms to prevent that. If no such mechanism exists then, and only then, should the system be reformed. Thankfully the system in the US is sufficiently flexible that no such reform appears to be necessary, in the long run.

Re:No change

[oliphaunt]

This sounds good, until you know the name of the case you're quoting:

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".

If this is a troll, it's a clever one: you're using the Dredd Scott decision to support your argument that Congress can't use the Commerce Clause to justify the EPA. But Dredd Scott was famously overturned. You should know better than to base an argument on an overturned decision, which is the only reason I question your intent in making the parent post.

Where does the EPA derive its power from?

The EPA derives its power from the Commerce Clause, like many other Federal agencies created by Act of Congress. And I won't argue interstate jurisdictional hooks or necessary and proper or rational basis with you here. I think you're taking an argument that was crafted to oppose Roe v. Wade by comparing it to Dredd Scott, and trying to apply it to this case. Write me up for No Sale.

I do agree with CJ Roberts' dissent(pdf, the Roberts dissent starts on page 39) in this case, that the Court should have declined to hear it in the first place becuase the state of Massachusetts lacks standing, which is not at all the same thing as lacking power under the Commerce Clause.

Re:No change

[UbuntuDupe]

Sure, that's how things happen at the moment. And look at the state of the world. If workers had a say ( or had THE say ), they would make decisions that were more responsible. They'd be far more inclined to consider things like sustainability, or protecting the environment, etc.

You're kidding, right? Regardless of whether "sustainability" policies are good ideas, you have to be insane to think that workers as such are more concerned about this. Who derails environmental legislation in Australia? Coal mining unions. Who derails it in America? The United Auto Workers. Who lobbies for cap-and-trade emissions programs? Energy and bank executives.

WAIT. I'm not trying to paint this as black-and-white, just showing how baseless your claim of "worker-run companies would care about the environment" is. The exact same forces that you claim (below) make workers unable to start businesses, make them have a higher "money-to-environment" preference. On the other hand, when someone has all material goods he could ever want, suddenly, clear air seems like more of a priority. Notice how it's less popular in poorer countries to protect the environment -- they want the cash.

Sorry, but that's just bullshit. There are massive institutional barriers that prevent workers from becoming capitalists. Individual workers are lucky to pay off their family home by the time they retire. They are certainly in no position to 'start their own factory' as you put it. Otherwise they wouldn't be workers, would they?

Sorry, this is just a tissue of error. First of all, workers typically have a lot of home equity they can tap, especially en masse, even if it's not paid off. Second, workers (of all classes) spend a significant fraction of their incomes on extravagances. Third, lacking the money to start a business is *far* from the most important reason why it's disadvantageous to start your own factory: it's called "risk". If you sink all of that money into a factory, you are "betting it all on one horse". If it doesn't work out, you lose your job *and* all assets. Plus, there are reasons having nothing to do with your personal diligence why it would fail: for one, other workers could shirk, and for another demand for your product could plummet.

I can 100% guarantee you that if my net assets (which is positive and significant compared to my annual income) increased 10x tomorrow, I *still* wouldn't start a business requiring more than about 10% of it to be at risk.

Oh come ON! They MAKE the laws. And then break them. And buy their way out, or cop the 'fine' as a cost of doing business.

This is ridiculous. Not all businesses (or even all large corprations) can have this kind of influence for the simple reason that their goals conflict. And even if they did laugh off everything with a fine, why do you think workers (more hungry for cash, remember) wouldn't do the same thing?

Well that's very backwards of you. Most people in the world are fighting for democracy, you know. And democracy doesn't mean voting for one dickhead over another every couple of years. It means taking part in the decision-making process about what society does with it's resources, and how the end products are distributed.

I wish you'd be more precise in your terminology. People generally accept democracy as good in some areas but not others. They most certainly don't want democracy in e.g. what job they take (labor is a resource) and what they do on weekends. You're trying to equate any advocacy of democracy with advocacy of state-run businesses.

Of course it is! People have a right to live, and living requires food & shelter. Food & shelter, in our society, are gained via work. So it follows that everyone has a right to work. It's very simple.

The GP said people don't have the "'right' to work anywhere.". He was saying that you don't have the right (and I agree) to pick an arbitrary workplace and make the owner hire you on your terms. I

In a press conference afterwards...

[bluemonq]

...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.

Re:In a press conference afterwards...

[Dunbal]

He then proceeded to give a tipoff about what Oxygen was doing around the corner with those two Hydrogen fellers....

      And then laughed and laughed, because everyone knows that Carbon can take 4 at a time...

Wow, this article is silly

[Talgrath]

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.

Re:YRO?

[CastrTroy]

The online part is that this is slashdot, and you're reading about your right while online. At least that's always the way I've interpreted it since it seems that about 50% of the stories have nothing to do with our rights on the internet.

Thirteenth Amendment

[tepples]

As Congress does not possess power itself to regulate carbon dioxide emissions Even when carbon dioxide emissions in one state interfere with the ability of another state to conduct commerce?

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) The loophole in this constitutional amendment is there to allow for forced labor for felons serving time in prison. Any slave camp established by the government would be considered a de facto prison, and there's still a ban on cruel and unusual punishments such as long prison terms for minor misdemeanors. Have you any evidence that the amendment has been applied in some other manner?

Important side note

[lelitsch]

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.

Re:Important side note

[Technician]

The AP coverage stresses that the ruling upholds the right of states to sue the Federal government over issues of global warming.

Maybe they will suddnly change the studies to show CO2 is only a small contributor to warming, say on the order of burning a candle in a house causes the house to become warmer.

After all, our global warming is the same as the global warming and loss of polar ice caps on Mars. It must be the sun that is the big factor, just like your house gets colder in winter and warmer in summer in spite of burning a candle. There is positive proof that burning a candle adds heat to a house. There is also proof positive that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a contributor to global warming. How much it warming it causes is the subject of a lot of science and political debate.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 0228-mars-warming.html

Re:Important side note

[schwit1]

"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.

Re:Important side note

[Scudsucker]

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?

Re:Important side note

[mdsolar]

Thanks! I'm just reading the opinion. Apparently the EPA argued that by misbehaving itself, it gained leverage over other countries. Wow.

EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate. For example, EPA said that a number of voluntary executive branch programs already provide an effective response to the threat of global warming, 68 Fed. Reg. 52932, that regulating greenhouse gases might impair the President's ability to negotiate with "key developing nations" to reduce emissions, id., at 52931, and that curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect "an inefficient, piecemeal approach to address the climate change issue," ibid.

Although we have neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate these policy judgments, it is evident they have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. In particular, while the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws. In the Global Climate Protection Act of 1987, Congress authorized the State Department--not EPA--to formulate United States foreign policy with reference to environmental matters relating to climate. See 1103(c), 101 Stat. 1409. EPA has made no showing that it issued the ruling in question here after consultation with the State Department. Congress did direct EPA to consult with other agencies in the formulation of its policies and rules, but the State Department is absent from that list. 1103(b).

Bodes poorly for U.S. oil imperialism

[michaelmalak]

This decision bodes poorly for the U.S. in regards to the Big Climate Lawsuit, whereby Boulder is suing two U.S. government agencies over global warming drying up Boulder's water reservoirs. Three California cities have since joined the lawsuit.

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.

Re:YRO?

[terraformer]

Ahh, it is pretty clear actually. Those are electrons powering your computer and there are electrons making your network run and there are electrons lighting up your screen, etc, etc...

Waiting to Exhale...

[1zenerdiode]

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.

It's really "The Courts"

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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

Not about Global Warming

[Brandybuck]

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."

Re:Politician claims CO2 not an air pollutant...

[Saint V Flux]

CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Volcanoes, vents in the earth, every living creature, decomposition, etc all release CO2 into the atmosphere. Plants require CO2 as well and without plants humans and animals cease to exist. So yea, lets get right on eliminating CO2 and the subsequent annihilation of the human race.

Direct Impact of CO2 itself?

[Guppy]

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.

Dissent

[Dirck_the_Noorman]

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

Re:Dissent

[dbitch]

Here's a fatal flaw in Scalia's argument:

"The court has no buisness substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgement of the responsible agency."

That's your problem, right there. The states don't believe that the "responsible agency" is. And they sued. They sued to get the EPA to accept CO2 as a _potential_ pollutant, because it could conceivably cause material harm. If the EPA is not even _considering_ it, then they are not serving the US. Hell, they've made almost everything else that's bad for you illegal.

If Congress gives an agency a mandate, they must consider _everything_ within their scope; they can't pick and choose what they'll consider.

Note that this doesn't force the EPA to accept CO2 as a pollutant, just that they _must consider_ it instead of saying "we don't want to get involved in this debate". FFS, they're the EPA. They should be front and center in the debate.

They've dodged the CO2 debate so far; it will be interesting to watch this happen.

Re:Great regulated respiration

[belg4mit]

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.

The U.S. business climate is now F....d.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Insightfull? - Mods, please RTFA.

[TapeCutter]

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.

Re:Insightfull? - Mods, please RTFA.

[ukemike]

It surprises me how a website full of otherwise apparently intelligent people can display such ignorance.

The Bush administration has consistently governed favoring crony-ism, special interests, and religious wackos, instead of science.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/6 2339

The Court told the EPA that they had to DO THEIR DAMN JOBS, regulate greenhouse gasses, or provide a reasonable explanation why they won't. You see for years in the face of overwhelming evidence they have simply failed to act in accordance with the law.

On the other big topic of debate here, whether this qualifies as "news for nerds," not all nerds are monomaniacally obsessed with computers. Some of us are interested in science, which is a study of how the real world works.

Thank you for your cooperation

[alienmole]

News that matters to lefties.

So as a presumably non-lefty, you don't care about this SCOTUS decision? That's good, because there are plenty more where that one came from, and it's nice to know you're just going to sit back and accept them!

Where are the primary sources?

[Dan Ost]

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.

Re:Where are the primary sources?

[polar red]

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.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

[scorp1us]

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.

It's all about Money, as usual

[kinglitho]

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.