You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
SCOTUS To Decide Global Climate Thingy Case
2006-11-27
 Why do I have a very bad feeling about this? 
High Court to Weigh Climate Change Case
The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming.
 Or cooling. Whichever, same same. Do they know which? Have the first clue? No. 
Hey, I've got friends in town later this month. Should they pack windbreakers or woollies?
A dozen states as well as environmental groups and large cities are trying to convince the court that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of public health, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles. Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. It is the principal "greenhouse" gas that many scientists believe is flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, leading to a warming of the earth and widespread ecological changes. One way to reduce those emissions is to have cleaner-burning cars.
Posted by:.com

#8  Next they'll want to regulate the amount of CO2 we exhale. And probably tax it.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2006-11-27 22:00  

#7  forest fires lit by slash & burn farmers in Southeast Asia?

Aka the infamous "brown cloud". But it's not pollution, no, it's... hummmm... errr... huh... well, it's not pollution anyway, since you can't blame the USA in particular, or Rich Capitalist White Men in general.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-11-27 15:58  

#6  The states, led by Massachusetts, and more than a dozen environmental groups insist the 1970 law makes clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant - much like lead and smog-causing chemicals - that is subject to regulation because its poses a threat to public health.

I might be wrong but isn't soda filled carbonated water and isn't that another way of saying carbon dioxide-impregnated water? Same with beer? If so I should think there would be A LOT of money lined up against any kind of regulations.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-11-27 14:22  

#5  I seem to recall that number two is volcanic emissions, something else the US government has no control over. And isn't #3 emissions from China or India, or forest fires lit by slash & burn farmers in Southeast Asia?
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-11-27 14:00  

#4  The United States accounts for about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to phil_b's comment, I think I read somewhere that the US is a net carbon sink. If I understand correctly, our reforestation activities alone fix more carbon than we produce/release, and that doesn't even factor in all the nice golf courses or landscaping you see everywhere.
Posted by: Mick Dundee   2006-11-27 09:56  

#3  "Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time and the decision by the court on this case will make a deep and lasting impact for generations to come," says Massachusetts' attorney general, Thomas Reilly.

If this guy's the man they're putting all their chips on, we'll be breathing pure sulfur dioxide by 2010.
Bring your seeing eye dog, Tommy...
Posted by: tu3031   2006-11-27 08:56  

#2  The United States accounts for about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Pure bollocks. Far and away the most potent greenhouse gas is water vapour, which 98% results from the oceans.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-11-27 06:09  

#1  Sue the volcanos!
Posted by: Cholunter Elmineck7388   2006-11-27 03:34  

00:00