http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070402160408.i1mdzqip&show_article=1
Government must deal with greenhouse gases: US Supreme Court
Apr 2 12:27 PM US/Eastern
The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants, in a blow to the White House.
“Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant’ we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles,” the court ruled.
Led by Massachusetts, a dozen states along with several US cities and environmental groups went to the courts to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.
“The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized,” said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against.
The Republican administration of US President George W. Bush has fiercely opposed any imposition of binding greenhouse limits on the nation’s industry.
Environmentalists have alleged that since Bush came to office in 2001 his administration has ignored and tried to hide looming evidence of global warming and the key role of human activity in climate change.
As the issue has come to the fore in the US, the White House earlier this year issued a rare open letter defending Bush’s record on climate change, rejecting criticisms that he has only recently awakened to the problem.
Monday’s ruling was immediately hailed by environmental campaigners which has been fighting for greater regulations in a nation which accounts for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.
“It is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming,” said Josh Dorner, spokesman for the Sierra Club environmental group.
“This is a total repudiation of the refusal of the Bush administration to use the authority he has to meet the challenge posed by global warming.
It also “sends a clear signal to the market that the future lies not in dirty, outdated technology of yesterday, but in clean energy solutions of tomorrow like wind, solar,” he added.
Copyright AFP 2005, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
By: Phixer - 3rd April 2007 at 13:09
Human caused climate change is a scam, turning into a religion real fast, attracting all kind of wackoes and wide-eyed extremists. Remindes me of some other movements, like Iconoclasts, Wiedertäufer and Maschinenstürmer.
That ruling is absurd. BAD! – to answer your question.
If you are using Michael Crichton’s ‘State of Fear’ as a reference then I can understand your misunderstanding of the issues.
A little research on the net can lead you to much information that should bring you to the conclusion that an anthropomorphic signature in greenhouse gas levels and the resultant warming leading to ‘climate change’ is very real.
As for Crichton’s book I will point you at:
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2004/story12-13-04b.html
as just one source which highlights the problems with his slant on the issues and also bring you up to speed on some research.
I have many more links if necessary, but hey, you do some work. 😉
By: Phil Foster - 3rd April 2007 at 09:24
A scam is it?
In 650,000 years the carbon content in the atmosphere has not reached 300 parts per million………………….and then it did, in the last 20 years and it is rising fast.
Scam or coincidence?
None of the above. It is human accelerated global warming.
You’re going to have a very pasty complexion when you have finally pulled you head out of the sand. :rolleyes:
By: Distiller - 3rd April 2007 at 07:21
Do you consider this a good thing or a bad thing?
Human caused climate change is a scam, turning into a religion real fast, attracting all kind of wackoes and wide-eyed extremists. Remindes me of some other movements, like Iconoclasts, Wiedertäufer and Maschinenstürmer.
That ruling is absurd. BAD! – to answer your question.
By: J Boyle - 2nd April 2007 at 22:08
Do you consider this a good thing or a bad thing?
Either way it’s the lawyers who are going to get rich. :diablo:
By: Phil Foster - 2nd April 2007 at 21:42
Do you consider this a good thing or a bad thing?
Sign In
April 2, 2007 at 7:25 pm