Okay, so it's two outs in the bottom of the Ninth and you are ten runs behind. Do you replace your clean up hitter with.. the Umpire?
The analogy relates to the current case befor ethe U.S. Supreme Court. Several State governments have brought a case to force the U.S. EPA to add carbon dioxide for their list of regulated pollutants, in effect forcing the Bush administration to deal with global cimate change after hiding from it for six years. It could also be noted that Bush promised to set caps on carbon emissions back in 2000 then reneged after the election. Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to take over the job of Congress and the President in this case? Very reluctantly I reply yes, as a last resort, because nobody else is up to the job.
It should not be necesary, but the other 2 branches of the Federal government are refusing to carry out their responsibilities. If the new Democrat Congress passes a carbon tax Bush is sure to veto, so the Supreme Court is the only means to start work before 2008. The Supreme Court has operated as a "safety valve" before for the resolution of overdue issues- one example would be Brown vs. Board of Education which ushered in the Civil rights era.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court should find in favor of the plaintiffs. Unfortunately, they probably will not, because they will not be able to get beyond the issue of "standing". They will probably look at these state governments and rule that they have no right to sue the Feds, and so it is irrelevant that the law says EPA must regulate air pollutants and that CO2 is one.
It's not as if I really want my electricity and gasoline expenses to go up. It's just that I want my grandchildren to have nice little lives, and I am concerned that global climate change will have other plans.
So- if this last ditch plan is not going to get us started, what is the plan? Do we wait a few more years, after the 18 years we have already waited?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 10
It's going to make for some very interesting demographics and consequences when citizens find themselves moving from state to state to find support for a particular quality of lifestyle--one way or the other. I would gladly pay more for utilities and gasoline [the U.S. has had a nice cheap ride for a long time] here in California; unfortunately global warming doesn't only effect CA. Of course global warming and consumption versus reduced consumption are only one of the issues which effects us all-globally. Unless of course you don't believe in global warming or peak oil--then I guess you can have it any way you want it; make it up as you go along.
BTW, I moved from the Los Angeles area 20 years ago because I figured I could add at least 10 years to my life by having cleaner air to breathe.
But should we have to? And, I'm not talking about being able to step out one's back door for a nice fresh glass of orange juice on the beach. Our global world is shrinking--there are fewer and fewer places to seek refuge. What was the civil war about -- slavery? states rights? Preserving the Union? What was the Berlin Wall about -- it came down because of global pressures and realities -- not because Ronald Reagan said, "tear that wall down." Are global warming, gay rights, civil rights, voting rights [pick any critically important social, religious or economic or political issue you wish] local or universal issues, to be decided on a state by state basis--or even a national or regional basis? I think those days are gone. We live in the great big world at large, one which I pray my grandchildren will find liveable.
We have a saying here, "act local but think global" That's all very nice--but global, universal issues have a nasty habit of impinging upon us in our cities and hamlets everywhere. I believe the reality is we have to take both into account at all times.
But, back to the original point -- the Courts. Our courts are wrestling with global-local issues as well in their judicial philosophies and findings.
Our shared history is one of different states and different peoples. To maintain our identity, our states need to remain separate and distinct which means people will have to move to find what their heart desires.
I was very skeptical about this case from the beginning, with the current make up of the SC, but now I'm a bit more optimistic. I've read that Justice Kennedy will likely cast the deciding vote, and his questions are a bit more fair than those of the "corporationist" justices.
How IS it that we can build smart bombs and all things "star wars" but can't deal with Co2 emissions or sustainable technologies? And, why does Ford get away with holding its hand out for $18 bln and the oil co's want to be bailed out to do R&D? Is this disgusting or what? Are we all stupid or asleep or both? Don't expect the SC to come galloping over the hill just before oil peaks.
I think he will still be able to run out the clock on this one and avoid taking action until after he flies away to that endless golf vacation.