How is climate change like child porn?
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:
- Does global warming exist? (the justices seem strangely reluctant to give even this question a 100% yes)
- 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)
- Does the E.P.A. have the power to act?
and:
4. Will action make any difference?
Big stuff.