Case could shape policy on warming:Supreme Court will hear whether the EPA can and should regulate v

[Judi Lynn]

Nov. 27, 2006, 1:33AM
Case could shape policy on warming
Supreme Court will hear whether the EPA can and should regulate vehicle emissions


By ERIC BERGER and PATTY REINERT
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

The Supreme Court this week will begin hearing perhaps the most significant environmental case ever to reach its marbled halls — a dispute that could shape the future of U.S. policy on global warming.

Fed up with what they perceived as a glacial federal response to melting ice caps and warming temperatures, environmental groups in 1999 asked the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles.

When the EPA declined, the matter went to court, with a dozen states siding with the environmentalists. Nine other states, including Texas, have argued against regulation and sided with the EPA.
(snip)

The legal wrangling, which could prompt the first U.S. regulatory action to counteract global warming, reaches its crescendo Wednesday, when justices begin hearing arguments.
(snip)

If Texas were a country, it would rank seventh in the world in greenhouse gas emissions.
(snip/...)

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4361315.html

[jamesinca]

1. I am torn

I don't know if I like the idea of the Supreme Court deciding vehicle emissions. I would like it if they ruled that corporations were not allowed to screw the people or the environment, in general. But to make a statement on just motor vehicles I am not to sure. Most of that uncertainty is because I have not thought about it much, the SCOTUS ruling on vehicle emissions that is.

I do think that poor people that can not buy greener cars will be the first ones to get screwed.

[Toots]

3. It is not about the Extreme Court making ruling on vehicle emmisions

It is about whether the EPA should and if they should also enforce those rulings..Expect a right wing ruling because it is a right wing court. There is no impartial and fair federal court system any longer. The Bush* Administration has filled over 70% of the Federal courts with fascist judges.... Expect no fair rulings...

[blm]

5. Why did Clinton-Gore's EPA turn this down in 1999 when asked?

.

[Tellurian]

11. Turn Down What?

Haven't you heard, we've had a Republican controlled Congress for the past 16 yrs.

Here is what Clinton/Gore Administration has done:

Clearing the Air of Unhealthy Pollution.

The President and Vice President have adopted the toughest standards ever on soot and smog. They proposed significant reductions in tailpipe emissions from cars, light trucks and SUVs, and heavy duty trucks and buses, and launched long-term effort to restore pristine skies over our national parks and wilderness areas. Since 1993, the number of Americans living in communities that meet federal air quality standards has grown by 43 million.

Reducing the Threat of Global Warming.

The Clinton-Gore Administration negotiated an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an environmentally strong and economically sound way. The President and Vice President secured $1.1 billion in FY 2000 for research and development of energy efficiency and clean energy technologies, and set a goal of tripling U.S. use of bio-energy and bio-products by 2010.

The President issued several Executive Orders.

The first Order directs agencies to dramatically improve energy efficiency in federal buildings, saving taxpayers over $750 million a year when fully implemented.

The second Order improves fuel efficiency by requiring the Federal government to reduce fuel use in its vehicle fleets by 20 percent in five years. The third Order offers federal workers incentives to use public transportation, cutting fuel use and the pollution that contributes to climate change. President Clinton won $1.2 billion in the FY 2001 budget for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, the backbone of the national effort to reduce greenhouse gases while creating jobs and saving consumers money.

EPA; National Economic Council, 11/18/99; Executive Memorandum, 8/12/99; Executive Order, 6/3/99; Executive Order, 4/22/00

For more information on the PEACE and PROSPERITY created by the Clinton/Gore Administration read here:

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Accomplishments/additional.html

[blm]

13. "enviro groups in 1999 asked EPA to regulate.....When EPA declined..."

Maybe you should report the reporters' error to them - if the groups went to the EPA in 2001, the reporters' need to know this so they can correct their report.

Let us know what they say about your correction. Thanks.


By ERIC BERGER and PATTY REINERT
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

The Supreme Court this week will begin hearing perhaps the most significant environmental case ever to reach its marbled halls — a dispute that could shape the future of U.S. policy on global warming.

Fed up with what they perceived as a glacial federal response to melting ice caps and warming temperatures, environmental groups in 1999 asked the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles.

When the EPA declined, the matter went to court, with a dozen states siding with the environmentalists. Nine other states, including Texas, have argued against regulation and sided with the EPA.
(snip)

The legal wrangling, which could prompt the first U.S. regulatory action to counteract global warming, reaches its crescendo Wednesday, when justices begin hearing arguments.
(snip)

[wuushew]

7. What is wrong with replacing one used car with another?

many low value vehicles I see on the road are large American sedans. Are the salvage values of these American beaters less than that of similar age foreign imports?


Are cultural issues impeding frugality and environmental concern?

[qwlauren35]

8. Yes.

Larger still means "cool".

Not sure if it's still easier to find American car parts.

[modrepub]

2. Huge

This will affect all man-made sources of CO2. If the Supreme Court says CO2 is a pollutant and the EPA must regulate it then a whole new realm of control technology would have to be implemented for all sources. Trading, caps etc. It will be seismic!

[Javaman]

4. Expect the non-reply reply. nt

[0rganism]

10. which is one of the reasons the SCOTUS will dismiss the case

The "conservatives" (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts) will certainly favor the federal government having moral regulatory authority, but not anything that would impact economic policy, especially in a way that would negatively affect GOP lobbies.

The "moderates" (Kennedy, Souter) don't want to rock the boat too much. They'll concur with the majority.

The "liberals" (Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens) will probably dissent, but they won't waste too much time on a lost cause.

I expect a quick & dirty 6-3 decision against EPA regulation of CO2 pollution -- and possibly all airborn pollution by extension of precedent.

It's just pathetic to see the EPA actively trying to neuter itself -- almost as pathetic as the lot of the environmentalists who pushed the case in court. What did they expect, judicial relief?

[Tellurian]

12. They won't dismiss it..

they will keep postponing a decision indefinitely.

The EPA does not work for the people, they protect big business.

[Ciggies and coffee]

14. Protect big business, handicap smaller ones

To force consolidation and leave only a few big players.

Pretty much the story of all federal regulation, either by design (bribes) or outcome (capture theory).

[Dover]

6. TX poised to build NINETEEN Coal Powered Plants!!!!

"Among all states, Texas is by far the No. 1 emitter of greenhouse gas pollution," said Colin Rowan, director of regional communication for Environmental Defense.

If Texas were a country, it would rank seventh in the world in greenhouse gas emissions.

"But Texas has no plan to stop it, slow it down or deal with the consequences," Rowan said. "We don't even have an official state inventory of what's at risk. Other states are trying to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but Texas is poised to build 19 coal-fired power plants that will emit an additional 110 million tons of greenhouse gas pollution a year. That's a pretty good snapshot of the path our leaders have taken us down."

Industry groups have warned that any ruling requiring the agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars could lead to more regulation of power plants and other industrial sources of greenhouse gases."


Forget the EPA regulation. This affects the whole world and should be globally regulated!

[Iris]

9. wait. . . judges. . shaping policy - isn't that judicial activism? nt