Supreme Court Rules on regulation of greenhouse gases from cars

Although I don't fully subscribe to global warming caused just by Humans… I think that our ways are exasperating a climate system already in flux and that any normal self correcting processes there are in place, are insufficient to deal with the artificial/additional load of green houses gases created by humans. In either case, some new thinking needs to be applied, as we humans *do* have an effect on the environment, to think otherwise is foolish and arrogant.

 

I agree that humans have an impact on the environment and the amount of CO2 in the air. However, I am far from convinced that humans are the direct cause for, what appears to be, global temperatures increasing (whether that increase is temporary or the start of a long term trend).

Of course, where possible, efforts should be made to limit our impact on the environment in general. The question becomes at what point are the costs outweighing any tangible benefits?

On a lighter note, I simply do not believe these predictions of global destruction as advanced by alarmist scientists (as I would term some of them) and people like the Honorable Al Gore when the weather people have difficulty in predicting storms and other weather details wrong all too often!

 

Of course, in the scheme of nature we ARE the environment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Apr 2 2007, 02:48 PM) [snapback]416556[/snapback]</div>

Where possible...?

Costs...to whom...?

Benefits...to whom...?

This sounds a lot like, "if it suits me/my finances/my beliefs/the whims of the current administration, we'll do it, but we'll also search for proof of other folks who don't...and then use this information as an argument for limiting our environmental efforts" to me.

It's like, I'm going to try to lose weight, but not actually set rules which modify my diet and increase my exercise...instead I'll "limit my intake of calories when possible, and exercise when the benefits outweigh the costs..."

Doesn't sound that such a plan will likely lead to much weight loss, does it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Apr 2 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]416468[/snapback]</div>

Gotta love this group... At first I thought this was a Troll considering the audience... then I changed my mind, when you said "some new thinking needs to be applied". I'd settle for ANY THINKING from our fearless leaders. [/troll]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 2 2007, 03:07 PM) [snapback]416574[/snapback]</div>

Those questions you just listed, of course, are THE debate/discussions that should be apart of civil discourse and public policy.

I'm not sure analogies work very well for such a large issue because a lot of analogies could be made that people would or would not agree with. For instance, a patient has a fever. Its especially bad when the person walks anywhere or does any exertion what so ever. Since the fever gets worse when the person walks or exerts themselves, that must be the cause of the fever. Therefore, to limit any exertion or risk of fever, we're going to cut the patients legs off to protect them from worsening the fever.

That analogy makes sense, but it doesn't make sense, just like the losing weigh analogy -- they just don't translate very well to this issue, IMHO.

Its a very difficult issue that can have drastic effects on people all over the world. If we don't do anything, and people like Mr. Gore are right, then we're going to be in very bad shape down the road. If we go to some of the extremes that some scientists and environmentalists would like, then there will be devestating effects on the world economy. There must be some middle ground between the two. The difficultly is figuring out what that middle ground is, which is serious business.

Where we start to lose the issue and an ability to compromise is when the rhetoric becomes out of control. The issue has become politicized by the extreme elements on both sides -- its almost as bad as the abortion or gun control debate!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Apr 2 2007, 03:48 PM) [snapback]416604[/snapback]</div>

I agree, but, generally speaking, when there's an unpleasant/costly/arduous task to be done, waffling and ambivolence usually equates to the preservation of the status quo.

My point is that there is no way to forecast with any accuracy the results of our actions under any circumstances.

So it becomes important to think about who we are as a Country and how we will live our lives/what we will place value upon.

Your argument that conservation and preservation of the environment will *necessarily* have dire economic consequences sounds to me as alarmist as those "alarmist scientists" whom you mention.

Really, we don't know if any of this is true or not. So, do we want to be a fat, wasteful, selfish society, or would we rather do what we can to live up to our own potential for greatness?

That's one thing we CAN control...how our actions make us feel about OURSELVES! The rest is speculation, and beyond the reach of our powers.

 

devestating effects to the economy for sure. in the short term and more harshly to developed and rapidly developing countries. There would be a rebound though. If we do nothing as you noted, devestating effects for a long long time. Just my humble opinion. i dont have all the facts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 2 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]416617[/snapback]</div>

Compromise is most possible when we have good "statesmen/women" willing to put aside rhetoric and politics to make a decision that is going to be difficult for both sides to accept. However, I fear that this country and the world is drastically short of good statesmen/woman.

An argument usually represents an opinion. It is my argument/opinion, that if we did the things to an extreme like some environmentalists/scientists suggest then it will have dire economic consequences. Please don't get me wrong, I don't think we should do nothing at all either!

I guess my overall problem is this feeling, similar to how we got into Iraq, we're being told there is this huge problem and we have to act -- we have some data that suggests there could be a big problem, but we can't wait, we have to act now.

I bought my Prius because I think its good policy for this country to reduce its depency on foreign oil -- and the fact that paying a lot for gas irks me! The decision to make that purchase was made much easier because of the tax credit.

If we want people to make good choices on how to save gas or be more environmentally friendly, then we should be doing more in the way of tax credits and other methods for steering people in that direction. Government mandates for people or industries to make changes start to worry me, no matter what the issue!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gonegreen @ Apr 2 2007, 01:03 PM) [snapback]416432[/snapback]</div>

Wonder if/how this would have shown up (here) had the court gone the other way...

 

A few reports?

View PBS' lovely timeline.

I think it's pretty certain that the time to act is now. Climate change was discovered over a hundred years ago.


It would be foolish to claim that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is completely anthropogenic, but we've certainly been careless with our emissions. The international panel of scientists has almost certainly shown this to be a significant problem. Go pick up this week's Time magazine; it's a double-issue on global warming.

I'm a devout enviornmentalist, but I recognize the economic impact drastic measures will have on the country. A balance must be reached, and it must be reached soon. We [as a whole world] can no longer deny our responsibility to protect the planet in favor of "luxury" vehicles or what have you.

 

Actually, I think what this decision does is allow the state of MA to sue the EPA and force them to regulate CO2 emissions (as well as other greenhouse gasses, such as methane). The court decided that MA had "standing" to bring such a suit, and that the EPA's enabling legislation would allow it to regulate CO2 even though it isn't on the list of original pollutants.

The legal problem with the decision, I guess, is that "standing" to bring a suit is usually given to an entity that is to be caused immediate harm, and that the suit will be able to prevent or mitigate that harm. In the case of EPA regulation of CO2, there is no immediate harm to the state of MA and, given what I've read from some experts, even if America were to reduce CO2 emissions to the standard of the Koyoto Agreement, it would not reverse the warming trend.