Supremes to decide whether EPA can or must regulate greenhouse-gas emissions

Mass Appeal

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in Massachusetts v. EPA, a humdinger of a case looking at whether the federal government can or must regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. The case centers on a Clean Air Act provision that requires regulation of air pollutants that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The plaintiffs (a cadre of 12 states, three cities, and green groups) argue that planet-toasting greenhouse gases fit that description. The Bush administration, on the other hand, claims that GHGs are not air pollutants, and thus that the U.S. EPA doesn't have the authority to regulate them. And you know how squeamish the White House gets about overstepping the bounds of lawful executive authority. The Bush squad also contends that even if they can regulate GHGs, that doesn't mean they must. (And furthermore, they never asked to be born!) While all eyes will be on tomorrow's action, a ruling isn't expected until next summer.

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko, 27 Nov 2006

straight to the source: Detroit Free Press, Justin Hyde, 27 Nov 2006

see also, in Gristmill: Global warming's Supreme Court debut

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

worth mentioning

In "Show Us Yor Titanium", the brief alludes to the particulate matter's ability to wash away, but does not outright say that the water systems will be more contaminated, nor to what extent.

by gristmonkey at 11:15 AM on 28 Nov 2006

"and when the bird away does fly"

From the NY Times:
<<
The author of "Right Wing, Wrong Bird: Why the Tactics of the Religious Right Won't Fly With Most Conservative Christians," Dr. Hunter has argued that a large number of conservative Christians feel that right-wing religious groups do not represent them, because they focus their energies too narrowly on what he calls moral issues, often to the exclusion of economic and environmental concerns.
>>

Too bad the Reverend Doctor Hunter has so narrow an interpretation of "moral." But clearly he was inspired with that amazing title.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 11:48 AM on 28 Nov 2006

Organic fish

This is my first time posting here so not sure I've got the right place, but I wrote a reply to the NY Times about the organic fish story and thought I'd share:

In yesterday's article `Free or Farmed, When is a Fish Really Organic?,' Andrew Martin examined the issue of organic fish labelling. Labelling farmed carnivorous seafood - such as salmon - as organic would represent a denigration of the organic label and dupe consumers into believing that they are encouraging sustainable fishing, when in fact they would still be directly contributing to the collapse of marine ecosystems. Farmed fish are fed fishmeal that is largely comprised of by-catch from the very commercial fisheries responsible for the decimation of ocean wildlife. With organisations like WWF and Sustain in the UK recently issuing reports claiming that world-wide fish stocks could collapse as early as 2050, and people like Sea Shepherd Foundation founder Captain Paul Watson saying things like `feeding your children fish is a form of child abuse' (because of mercury poisoning), surely the `organic' label must be vigorously guarded from commercial compromise. Our oceans are in deep trouble, and the time has come to defend them.
Nicole Hess
London

I've also got a bit more about it on my blog: planetegg.blogspot.com.

by hessster at 6:21 AM on 29 Nov 2006

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?