US News
US Supreme Court allows emissions caps in first climate ruling
Apr 2, 2007, 17:55 GMT
Washington - In its first ruling on global warming, the US Supreme Court on Monday said federal and state environmental agencies have the right to introduce mandatory caps on greenhouse-gas emissions, which had been disputed by the United States government.
The court's nine justices were split 5-4 along ideological lines in the case, which pitted an alliance of 12 states, three cities, businesses and environmental groups against an equally imposing coalition of 10 states, nine automakers, utility companies and other businesses.
The case revolved around whether the government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority, or even an obligation, to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions, specifically on cars, based on a 17-year-old law passed by Congress on air pollution.
The Supreme Court said that the 1990 Clean Air Act was 'unambiguous' in providing a definition of air pollution that could include the harmful effects of carbon dioxide - blamed for global warming - and therefore gives the government and states the authority to take action to reduce vehicle emissions.
'The harms associated with climate change are serious and well- recognized,' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court criticizing the EPA for offering a 'laundry list of reasons not to regulate.'
But the court did not rule that the EPA had an obligation to introduce mandatory limits on vehicle emissions, viewing that as a policy decision at the discretion of the agency.
Congress has until now been unwilling to approve mandatory caps on emissions, whether on cars or industry, while the EPA - under US President George W Bush's administration - has argued it has no right to introduce emissions limits.
Environmental groups voiced hope that Monday's ruling would spur Congress into action, while the ruling also allows states to go ahead with their own mandatory caps on car emissions.
'This is likely to increase pressure on Congress to act quickly on global warming,' Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. 'This is a landmark decision.'
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
If the htachets stay out too long, you won't have to worry - you'll either be frying or under water
Ohh my God!! The Sky is FALLING, PLEEASE SAVE ME AL GORE!!
'The Supreme Court has just opened one of the biggest cans of worms in history. '
Thankfully, one of the cornerstones of the US constitution is that government shouldn't make laws to protect people from their own stupidity.
In this case, that means states are free to pass stupid laws that end up taxing people for absolutely, positively no appreciable gain.
I invite everyone to watch the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' on utube.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
Then go insist that your state doesn't do something stupid.
We know that putting Co2 into the atomopshere is not good for our environment. Why does it mater what he reason is for the cap as long as we are helping the environment? Weather global warming is real or not it doesn't matter, putting as much CO2 that we are putting into the atmopshere is not health for us. We are posioning ourselves. Are you scared to change from your comfortable lifestyle and walk instead of drive? are you afraid to be a little healthier by walking? stop making excuses and start to change!!!!!
This is a step in the right direction, in the direction of facts, of science and of common sense. This is a step in the direction of our health and of our children's health and livelihood. We need to take action and set a standard for the rest of the world in realistic assessments and policy on environmental issues. After all, everything that goes into our continued survival, everything that we have and that has been used to build what we have has come from our environment, from our planet. Common sense. Bite the hand that feeds no longer. Thank you supreme court.
Before getting too carriued away quoting 'the great global warming swindle' you should know that some of the scientists ion it were misled and misquoted and have withdrawn support, the producers have admitted many of the graphs were wrong and the programme has been trashed as rubbish by proper scientists
The trial lawyers are doing handstands.
The rest of us just got a secret tax.
Bend over...
The opening line of the article, 'In its first ruling on global warming,' fairly demonstrates the journalist's misunderstanding of the nature of the court's ruling. The court has no opinion on global warming, any more than it has an opinion on the existence of water on Mars. The political divide in the court, one would hope, has to do with differing views of jurisprudence and not scientific facts and or theories.
Those who believe that this ruling shows a court preference for environmentalism should not be so encouraged.
Re: concerned's statement 'We know that putting Co2 into the atomopshere is not good for our environment' It aint true. It is just your and many others belief.
Thank you very much Chilly for the youtube post which really opened my eyes to the classic mass hysteria going on. The global COOLING fears of the 1970's were very telling and it pointed out that whole 'man makes co2 makes heat' argument can be neatly turned on its head since the *sun* likely drives global warming and warming may cause the rise in C02.
Steve - see the earlier comment about the great global warming swindle. And also note in particular, the supposed cooling from the 1950s which was a cornerstone of the programme, has been shown as the producers falsely interpreting of the data (whether deliberately or accidentally is not clear at this stage)
The Great global Swindle is itself a swindle commandeered by EXXON from ASCO the same PR company that was hired by the tobacco industry to convince the population smoking tobacco is no health hazard .The so called scientific contributors have not published anything in the last ten years related to climate .Some of the people involved are now even opposed to it and some say their words have been taken out of context .The debate is over and done with ?The only thing that stands between us and action is the PR section from the oil lobby .They are powerful in the USA and control the government ?Even as Bush recognizes the reality of the problem he refuses to act .This will cost you a lot more in the future .Some simpleton even use the argument that China now pollutes the atmosphere as much as the USA and emits the same quantity of CO2 to claim nothing needs to be done .Think again then,the average chines produces 6 times less carbon dioxide as the average American .
page: 1
NoharnessApr 2nd, 2007 - 18:04:50
We should be careful of what we wish for. In this case, we are going to wish we hadn't wished for it. The Supreme Court has just opened one of the biggest cans of worms in history. This will lead to an unending, time and resource wasting hatchet fight that will never end.
Report this comment