[Malachai Constant]

SCOTUS has just ruled that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases Opinion

[MtnGoat]

Will the EPA be liable for costs incurred by mistakes in regulation? Or will the incurred costs be a one way street...pay them when imposed....but no liability for errors?

[Mtn Dog]

Well isn't that just great. Now every time we exhale we will be causing pollution. Can't wait for the EPA to regulate that!

[whistlingmarmot]

The EPA didn't want to regulate this. Private parties sued to try to get the EPA to do it, and the court seems to say the EPA must do it, or at least make some sort of 'judgment'. Check out the dissent. Very strange case IMO.

[Malachai Constant]

Marmot at least you appear to have read the case, but it is not particularly strange. It is typical of cases mandating action by an administrative agency.

[peltoms]

I agree Malachai it is not even mandating action, it seems to me the SC is saying inaction without due diligence on the issue is not acceptable. From Grist.org "Should Massachusetts prevail, our global warming "victory" may be less than we hope. The Supreme Court will not order EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead, the court will send the case back, giving the agency another crack at deciding for itself whether such regulation is appropriate "

[silence]

Petitioners included the State of Washington - for more background from the Environmental Defense, one of the primary petitioners, go here: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5623 Since this doesn't require the EPA to take action, Environmental Defense will be urging Congress to put an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions. FYI: In Jan, 10 major companies joined Environmental Defense and three other environmental organizations to call for a mandatory national cap on global warming pollution. The companies were: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, Florida Power & Light, General Electric (a founding member), Lehman Brothers, Pacific Gas & Electric, and PNM Resources. Read more about "A Call to Action" here: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=5828

[Dale]

[Ski]

"The world became warmer than it is today after the last ice advance in the Puget Sound area about thirteen thousand years ago. Some geologists say that this warm period was a minor fluctuation and that we have not yet emerged from the Ice Age because the earth is still somewhat iced, as shown by the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps, the frozen North Polar Sea, and the numerous small glaciers sprinkled about many mountain ranges, and the wide expanses of permanently frozen ground in Canada, Alaska, and Siberia. During the warm period the northern ice sheets and most of the alpine glaciers disappeared, although the largest and highest - such as the Blue and Hoh glaciers - may have survived. Present-day Olympic glaciers apparently were born about twenty-five hundred years ago, evidence of a current cool episode. Since then they have been steadily retreating, but whether this present warming is a long-time trend or whether a full-scale ice age will recur is unknown." page 44, "Guide to the Geology of Olympic National Park", Rowland W. Tabor, © 1975 UW Press

[peltoms]

The 25 year old report on Olympic glaciers is far from accurate. Tabor knows rocks not glaciers. At the end of the Fraser Advance Olympic glaciers retreated to at least present size by about 10,000 years ago as noted by Spicer in his dissertation. The advance of glaciers in the Cascades due to neoglaciation a bit before 5000 years ago has been noted in a number of locations. Datable material has not been found in the Olympics to my knowledge. However, Olympic glaciers due follow the same advance and retreat history as the Cascades and Heusser in pollen records noted the cooling of the area began then. The advance of the Blue and White Glaciers which joined in the Little Ice Age was the most extensive since the last ice age advance. Retreat was small until 1910. The Blue Glacier retreated rapdily from 1910-1950, and advanced somewhat from 1950-1980 and has since retreated beyond its 1950 terminus positiion. Thus, the glacier is likely at its smallest in the last 5000+ years and retreating quickly. It did not retreat without pause, thus it is not retreating today due to the end of the LIA. It is responding to the current warming not some long term trend that began a hundred or even a thousand years ago. The same could be said for the Hoh Glacier or Anderson Glacier or Humes Glacier. Anderson Glacier has experienced rapid retreat since 1990 losing a third of its area, Hoh Glacier retreated 488 m since its 1970's advance ended.

[Dale]

April 3, 2007 REVIEW & OUTLOOK Jolly Green Justices April 3, 2007; Page A14 The current Supreme Court is a talented group of jurists, but until yesterday we didn't think their expertise ran to climatology. The Justices would have done better in their big global warming decision if they'd stuck more closely to the law. They showed no such modesty. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, a narrow majority managed to diminish the rules of judicial standing, rewrite the definition of "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, and dramatically curtail the decision-making authority of the executive branch. And judging from Justice John Paul Stevens's 5-4 majority decision, they did so because the five Justices are personally anxious about rising temperatures. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in dissent, the "Court's alarm over global warming" has led it to substitute "its own desired outcome" for the EPA's judgment. The case goes back to 1999, when activists frustrated that Congress hadn't enacted a global warming program demanded that the EPA use its Clean Air Act power to unilaterally regulate CO2 "pollutants" from cars. The EPA declined to do so in 2003, claiming it lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2. The greens and several states turned to that mecca for frustrated liberal policy makers -- the courts. The five Supreme climatologists granted Al Gore's fondest wish by declaring that "the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." The majority warned about a "precipitous rise in sea levels," "severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems" and "increases in the spread of disease." The Court used all of this not-so-inadvertent opining to justify its conclusion that CO2 is indeed a "pollutant." The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate "any air pollutant" from cars that might "endanger public health or welfare," though the majority took the widest view that the definition includes any "physical, chemical" substance that goes in the air. (Next up: oxygen.) Justice Scalia poked fun at this reasoning, noting Webster's definition of "pollute" is "to make or render impure or unclean" -- which might apply to sulfur dioxide or other dirty gases but not a product of human respiration that resides in the upper atmosphere. In any case, isn't this something for Congress to decide? Global warming was already a hot topic in 1990, when Congress last amended the Clean Air Act. Yet it declined to enact amendments that would have forced the EPA to set CO2 emissions standards. The Members have since been engaged in periodic brawls over whether and how to regulate CO2, but, voila, the High Court has now declared that it shall be so. The ruling means the EPA must regulate automobile CO2 emissions unless that agency can show the science of global warming, or the potential harm it may cause, are too uncertain to justify action. The Bush EPA will no doubt be sued whatever it does. Congress will also dive in with more regulation, if only to clear up the legal uncertainty. Perhaps most distressing is the way the majority made a hash of traditional "standing" doctrine, which determines when a plaintiff has a right to sue. To justify its global warming afflatus, the Justices simply asserted that the Massachusetts coastline faces imminent threat from rising seas. Not even Mr. Gore goes that far. But the Court cites climate models to suggest future harm in order to claim the threat of immediate injury, and thus standing by the Bay State. "Aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners' 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts coastal land from 20th century global sea level increases," writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent. "It is pure conjecture." And done for the purpose of pure policy invention. Standing is one of the few self-restraints on the power of the federal courts, and it is a far too frequent habit of the current Supreme Court to view its own power as unlimited. By diluting the standards for standing, the High Court creates a highway by which judges can speed past the political branches and play an ever larger role in American public life. It is also worth noting that this is at least the third case in two years in which Justice Kennedy has provided the fifth vote for a decidedly activist liberal majority. Someone recently quipped that Justice Stevens considers it his late life's work to compete for the jump ball that is the jurisprudence of Justice Kennedy, and he seems to be winning most possessions. URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117556584791057835.html at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.

[Malachai Constant]

Ore right wing claptrap from the Wall Street Journal Editorial page I do not believe cutting and pasting editorials is productive or desirable. Obviously I could cut and paste 10 for each one you do but that would lead to the type of situation which banned politics on this website. People are interested in posters take on events, anybody who is interested in editorials can access them if desired. A link is sufficient .

[Dale]

Sorry, I did not know that you all could access the online WSJ. I thought only those who pay for it can. So I won't do it again but I wanted you all to realize that the Supremes had changed the definition of "polution." Dale

[Malachai Constant]

Sorry if I came on a bit strong but I did not want to get this forum closed. The Journal does not restrict linking to editorials unlike the Times . The interpretation of legal decisions is complex and what the editorial is one interpretation of the decision but not the most common one. The most likely interpretaion of the decision is that it merely followed the original intent of the legislation.Courts often interpret legeslative intent in this manner.

[Tom]

FWIW, the link only provides a couple paragraphs and says the full article (editorial?) is only available to subscribers.