Top court rebukes administration on warming

Good news. Let's see if they comply.

Good news indeed. I'd wondered when that ruling would come out. I hadn't heard what happened to that decision since it was presented to the court.

Thanks for the news Steve...

What is the whole story of their decision? What is reproduced there is not much of a "rebuke." So what does the court tell the administration to do?

Follow up articles:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17911853/

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12500

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/
scotus.greenhousegas.ap/index.html

And for TJ:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/
2007Apr02/0,4670,ScotusGreenhouseGases,00.html

Thanks Steve B.!

Also worth noting... The dissent (losing) opinion discusses the right to bring the case to court in the first place and provides no dissent on the science of greenhouse gases as currently understood by the National Acadamy of Science and others...

'Court Rebukes Administration in Global Warming Case'
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars,
a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

The court had three questions before it.
--Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision? [Finding:YES]
--Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases? [FINDING: YES]
--Does EPA have the discretion NOT to regulate those emissions? [Finding: NO]

This is contrary to the Bush administration's policy on this issue...

See the links above and elsewhere for further indepth analysis...

But what about the methane emmisions from termites? Don't laugh, this is a SERIOUS problem. Wetlands produce 76%, termites 11%, oceans 8% and hydrates produce 5% of methane, a known "greenhouse" gas.

And why is a Federal appointed judge being "influenced" by Al Gore's inane propaganda machine known as An Inconvenient Truth?

Does this "Clean Air Act" include EU? China? India? They are the biggest contributers for CO2 emmisions.

Cindy: "And why is a Federal appointed judge being "influenced" by Al Gore's inane propaganda machine known as An Inconvenient Truth?"

Probably because "An Inconvenient Truth" is more accurate than you can acknowledge in your inane idiolotry.

Cindy: "Does this "Clean Air Act" include EU? China? India? They are the biggest contributers for CO2 emmisions."

This is why I usually don't answer your nonsensical questions. Your questions are based factual inaccuracies, which renders them meaningless. In other words, there are no answers to nonsense.

Now, as to the legal definitions resulting from the supreme court's decision, if people, who think like you do, continue to take no responsibility for CO2 emissions, they will have to face legal consequences. I hope that fact at least registers with you through your inane protests.

David: "The dissent (losing) opinion discusses the right to bring the case to court in the first place and provides no dissent on the science of greenhouse gases as currently understood by the National Acadamy of Science and others... "

This is not a minor point. Not even the dissenters in this opinion challenge the scientific basis of global warming. The dissent is a matter of legal procedure.

Thanks for pointing this out.

yes i sure would like to see that to

Steve,
There is some good news, I am wondering why it wasn't unanomous. I hope these people get there heads out and start looking at the righting on the wall. GO HYDROGEN.

I do believe if Al Gore were to run now, he'd win. Our country is being run by a moron, yes a moron, backed by some corrupt sociopathic men who would sell their own mothers for another divot in their coffers. They see our natural resources as something to exploit for the rich and powerful. George Orwell and George Soros have both written books on this sort of cronyism ---- they call it fascism. And we are the sheep that are being lead to their slaughter.

I was looking up some articles, when i found somthing that took me totally by surprise, something i was least expecting to right in front of me, right in front of my screen.

I know this may appear a bit off the topic, but i noticed your comment on his article. Steve, did you have any idea as to who this man writing the article(link below) is!!!???

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977072186

Suzi. I agree. But I hope Gore doesn't run. He's more effective doing what he's doing. Only a year and a half till w. is history.

Dar. I don't know.

Well lets put it this way, the name Rockefeller is an extremely powerful name. There are hardly any names that can make this one look small. But one name surely can do this and it is this guys family, the one & only, most powerful banking family over at least the last 200 yrs.

And steve just before you go out there and comment any further on oil & stuff, i think you should take a look at this. These powerful families are hypocrites.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/11/Oligarchs071103.html

Dar. Like I'm going to take the Washington Times seriously, owned by Rev. Moon. But even if true, that has nothing to do with my posting articles, supported by science, that CO2 is causing global warming, and that there are much better energy alternatives. But let me get this straight - I'm going to "believe" a "Moonie" false media outlet before I believe most major scientific organizations throughout the world. I don't think so.

nope, i was talking about certain comments to his article and about what you may also want to about them before you comment "out there again". Its just that i read a few comments out there with certain accusations against oil interests and i thought you might want to know this before you comment on any related matter there (i.e oil).

Ok, so could be right about moon & the times and i'm not going to tell youwhat to believe cause that isnt up to me. All i can do is provide information and nothing more. Besides, im only human and who knows maybe i could be wrong. I thought the this was just another banking family with a history tied to the oil industry as well, yeah but perhaps thats hard to believe considering what you said about moon.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article1101531.ece?submit.x=34&submit.y=8


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry_in_Azerbaijan#Oil_production
http://www.nysun.com/article/56541
http://www.oilandgasinsight.com/file/32889/rothschilds-back-in-the-oil-game.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mayer_de_Rothschild

Anyway,It appears this this is of news is of no importance or relevance to you and that isnt a problem, i felt you might want to know this so i told you. i think i'll leave things the way they were and let things continue the way they were.

Oh by the way your probably wondering, yes i could have told you this on a comment on his article, but i had my reason for not going there.

I don't have a problem with a member of a family, who has oil interests, trying to correct past mistakes. I don't call that hypocritical. I was even willing to give w. the benefit of the doubt in early 2001, since he had promised to regulate CO2 emissions. Alas, Cheney and Exxon quickly changed his mind.

Darwin was right.. As a conservative(strongest), I will find a way to get benefits out of Global warming and we will be the the strongest.. While the doom and gloom liberals are going to melt away whining and crying as their ocean front property sinks under water.... I will put up big wind wills and attach giant air conditioners for my cows and direct the exhaust side at my liberal neigbors house while I sit harvesting a 2nd corn crop in Minnesota during January... Can not wait till I can farm all year around.. Global warming will be better for the small family farmer, especially in Alaska and Canada...

jason.

Those benefits will be only temporary for most farmers/ranchers. You will likely do better than you southern colleagues. The benefits might last through your lifetime, but if you have kids and hope to pass on the farm to them, they might not fare as well. Even so, I think you have to consider all the predictions/consequences as a whole. There are likely to be many more disadvantages - even to you. This isn't a conservative/liberal issue.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Pew-Synthesis.pdf

Excellent article. I hope it happens.