Frustrated by Bush administration inaction on global warming, states and environmentalists urged the Supreme Court Wednesday to declare greenhouse gases to be air pollutants that the government must regulate.
For me, the global warming issue is a perfect example of the blinders that we as humans (and especially us americans) have managed to strap over our eyes. Scientists have been making noise about this issue for a long time now, but it’s primarily a future peril, it’s a slippery little issue that is fairly easy to tuck out of sight and mind because the consequences are not readily apparent.
Well, to my mind the consequences are clear, but I can almost understand how it can get pushed to the side in the public consciousness, I mean after all . . .
Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, representing the Bush administration, cautioned justices that EPA regulation could have a significant economic impact on the United States because 85 percent of the U.S. economy is tied to sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
What we have is vast sums of wealth in one hand, and global catastrophe in the other. As humans, we’ve allowed ourselves to become incredibly short-sighted when it comes to thinking out the consequences of our actions. Add in the fact that by continuing to ignore the issue, we aren’t forced to make any sacrifices right now, and it’s no surprise that there is a large faction that doesn’t want to deal with the problem at hand.
Reading this story, it doesn’t even seem that the people bringing this to the court are pushing for anything terribly drastic, but predictably enough, the administration is clinging to that old chestnut . . .
Garre also argued that the EPA was right not to act given “the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change.”
I can’t even bear to respond to that one, but this next little nugget pulled me up out of my seat and had me shaking my fist at my poor computer, as the bearer of ignorance.
Garre told the court that the EPA lacks the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Even if it had such authority, the EPA still had the discretion not to regulate the emissions because of uncertainty and a preference for international, rather than unilateral, action, Garre said.
Ok, “a preference for international, rather than unilateral, action”?!?!?!
First, when has this new fear of unilateral action sprung into the administration? Don’t tell me they’ve actually learned something from that debacle in Iraq (which many have seen as nothing more than a power grab for dwindling reserves of non-renewable energy). On top of that, anyone out there remember Kyoto? That was the chance for international action, international action is taking place without us currently, if the supreme court actually does something to help us limit our contributions to the world’s greenhouse gases, we’ll be showing up late to the party, not taking unilateral action.
All the same, at least we’re talking about it.
Read the whole story.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:24 pm
I find that many of my “educated” co-workers think that global warming is a political debate and not scientific fact.
I find this very scary.
I think that people forget the definition of Theory. Here it is kids
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Just try this for yourself;
Search the internet for global warming.
Now weed out all the sites that are religious, political, or just not scientific.
What do you have?