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
...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.
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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.
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.
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 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!
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
It surprises me how a website full of otherwise apparently intelligent people can display such ignorance.
6 2339
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/
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.
-- QED
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?
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.