30 November 2006

How is climate change like child porn?

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court took on climate change. The specific question is whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should be forced to regulate carbon emissions. It's worth noting that the EPA is part of the executive, i.e., under Bush's control. The current 'regulators' argue that the Clean Air Act (last amended in 1990) doesn't specify carbon as a pollutant; thus they shouldn't bother doing anything about it.
Without getting too technical, the case revolves around 'standing'; the real question is, are the plantiffs (U.S. states, cities and enviro groups) being injured by the behaviour of the defendent (the EPA); and can a lawsuit remedy such injury? During arguments some core questions were teased out:

  1. Does global warming exist? (the justices seem strangely reluctant to give even this question a 100% yes)
  2. Are the plantiffs being hurt? (Interseting detail: Assistant Attorney General James R. Milkey of Massachusetts aruged that the states risk losing "soverign territory" to rising sea levels)
  3. Does the E.P.A. have the power to act?

and:

4. Will action make any difference?

Big stuff.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home