Supreme Court battle considers regulation of greenhouse gases (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

This case is going to determine the direction of the Roberts court, and in this case, there are 2 opposing Constitutional questions which are going to have to be resolved with each other.

1) The 10th Amendment, of course, involves states rights.

2) However, if pollution in one state affects another state, then it looks like a Federal case.

Now the biggie which is to be decided - Can carbon emissions which contribute to global warming be designated as pollutants, thus forcing the EPA to regulate them? This will be a very interesting case, and there are valid arguments on both sides of it.

I am including a poll to see where everyone stands on this issue.

Article is here.

 

[jfuh]

This case is going to determine the direction of the Roberts court, and in this case, there are 2 opposing Constitutional questions which are going to have to be resolved with each other.

1) The 10th Amendment, of course, involves states rights.

2) However, if pollution in one state affects another state, then it looks like a Federal case.

Now the biggie which is to be decided - Can carbon emissions which contribute to global warming be designated as pollutants, thus forcing the EPA to regulate them? This will be a very interesting case, and there are valid arguments on both sides of it.

I am including a poll to see where everyone stands on this issue.

Article is here.

This case seems very interesting indeed. But Scalia today asked this stupid and rediculous question that was right out of something one would expect Cheny and co to ask :“You have to show the harm is imminent,” “I mean, when is the cataclysm?”
Something the apologetics would ask sure, understandable, a supreme court justice? For gods sake seriously.
Imagine if this was a question about terrorism "You have to show that a terrorist attack is imminent" "I mean when is the jihad going to take place and blow up the US?"
What a moron.

 

[RightinNYC]

There's actually three different issues here, not just two. I'll try to explain them as best I can

1)Authority - Whether the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The relevant part of the Clean Air Act, which "authorizes" the EPA to regulate emissions, defines those emissions as "any air pollution agent ... including any ... chemical ... substance ... which is emitted into ... the ambient air."

Petitioner's (The people suing) Claim: Under this statue, CO2 emissions should be considered an air polluton agent, and as such, the EPA has the authority to regulate them.


EPA's Claim: The legislation that was passed in 1990 had no intent of regulating global climate change. The Act never referred to global warming, and as such, claiming that it now extends to cover CO2 is making an attempt to place present day interpretations on past legislation, which the Court cannot do.

2) Discretion - Whether, if the EPA has the authority to regulate, it can decide not to regardless.

Petitioner's Claim: The statue as written only allows the EPA to decide if an "agent" "causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." They claim that if the EPA finds that CO2 falls under this category, it must act.

EPA's Claim: The EPA has the inherent authority to decide whether or not to even consider CO2 within its purview. The Clean Air Act is not the best way to address the problem of climate change, and as such, it should not be used as the vehicle for setting national policy.

3) Standing - Whether the petitioners have the standing to even press this issue (Courts require that "injured parties" must have standing in order to proceed with a case)

Petitioner's Claim: Regulating cars and trucks is a serious step needed to regulate carbon emissions and in turn curb global warming, which has a very specific and damaging effect on individuals and groups here in the US.

EPA's Claim: The amount of greenhouse gas the EPA could actually limit is too infinitesmal to have an appreciable effect on global warming. Because the "injury" occuring is a global injury that affects all human kind, the courts is not the appropriate venue to pursue this issue.



Each of these claims is interesting and raises good points. Before I go any further, let me make it clear that support or opposition for the petitioners in no way indicates support for or opposition to global warming. There are many who support taking strong steps to curb emissions, but don't believe that this case is the appropriate way to do so.

In regards to the first question: The question is simple - when the Clean Air Act was written, did the authors intend CO2 to be considered an "air pollution agent?" If so, then the EPA has the authority. If not, then no, Congress needs to pass new legislation authorizing them to do so.

In regards to the second question: This is a much more complex question, dealing with the powers of executive agencies. The EPA is saying that they don't think that regulating CO2 as a "air pollution agent" is the best way to address global warming, and that newer, more comprehensive legislation should be passed. As the EPA, do they have the power to do that, or are they forced to do so by the Clean Air Act. Its a question of legislative or executive supremacy.

In regards to the third question: This is a very cool and quirky problem - is the issue of global warming massive enough in its potential impact yet vauge enough in its specific injury that the petitioners simply do not have standing?

This is the question that Scalia was raising that jfuh dismissed out of hand. Rather than being the "stupid and redonculous" question of a "moron," it was actuall pointing out a serious issue in the case. If the court determines that the case is too global and massive in its scope, it can decline to address it.

And before you claim that it's an absurd idea, the DC Appeals Court which last heard this case (who decided 2-1 against the petitioners) had one judge who agreed with this proposition.

All in all, its a very interesting case, and I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes.

 

[jfuh]

This is the question that Scalia was raising that jfuh dismissed out of hand. Rather than being the "stupid and redonculous" question of a "moron," it was actuall pointing out a serious issue in the case. If the court determines that the case is too global and massive in its scope, it can decline to address it.

A serious issue? How is asking "when is the cataclysm" making it a serious issue. It's completely trying to dismiss the issue as irrelevant and yes Scalia is trying to get the court to decline to address it - hence the sarcastic remark. If he was any the more knowledgable he would understand the irrelevance of his question. Just what was it supposed to address? If the cataclysm is far away it's not a big deal? If the cataclysm is tomorrow then it's too late to do anything?
So yes, Scalia is a moron.

 

[RightinNYC]

A serious issue? How is asking "when is the cataclysm" making it a serious issue. It's completely trying to dismiss the issue as irrelevant and yes Scalia is trying to get the court to decline to address it - hence the sarcastic remark. If he was any the more knowledgable he would understand the irrelevance of his question. Just what was it supposed to address? If the cataclysm is far away it's not a big deal? If the cataclysm is tomorrow then it's too late to do anything?
So yes, Scalia is a moron.

Again, because you don't understand the relevance of the question doesn't mean it isn't there.

The reason why whether the cataclysm is imminent or not is relevant is because in order to pursue a suit like this, petitioners must have standing. According to the way our justice system is constructed, if actual injury cannot be shown, there is no standing. The point Scalia is making is the same one that a different 12th Circuit court judge supported in the rejection of this case - the petitioners have to show that:

a) The problem is specific, tangible, and imminent
b) That they personally or the entities they represent are being harmed by it
c) That the injury would be tangibly lessened by a decision in their favor, and d) That the injury is specific to them, rather than being a general problem attributable to the world.

Your snide and dismissive comments do nothing but show your belief that the justice system should work the way you want, rather than the way it does.

Also - pet peeve that I have. Calling someone a moron when they're incredibly educated and imminently more knowledgable than you on the issue just reeks of sour grapes and can usually just ends up making you look worse. I can understand that you dislike the majority of his beliefs (or what you assume to be his beliefs), but that doesn't make him a moron.

I might vehemently disagree with Hillary, Souter, Stevens, or Kerry, but they're not morons. They make decisions that I disagree with, and support policies that I do not. That doesnt make them morons, it just makes them wrong.

 

[danarhea]

Again, because you don't understand the relevance of the question doesn't mean it isn't there.

The reason why whether the cataclysm is imminent or not is relevant is because in order to pursue a suit like this, petitioners must have standing. According to the way our justice system is constructed, if actual injury cannot be shown, there is no standing. The point Scalia is making is the same one that a different 12th Circuit court judge supported in the rejection of this case - the petitioners have to show that:

a) The problem is specific, tangible, and imminent
b) That they personally or the entities they represent are being harmed by it
c) That the injury would be tangibly lessened by a decision in their favor, and d) That the injury is specific to them, rather than being a general problem attributable to the world.

Your snide and dismissive comments do nothing but show your belief that the justice system should work the way you want, rather than the way it does.

Also - pet peeve that I have. Calling someone a moron when they're incredibly educated and imminently more knowledgable than you on the issue just reeks of sour grapes and can usually just ends up making you look worse. I can understand that you dislike the majority of his beliefs (or what you assume to be his beliefs), but that doesn't make him a moron.

I might vehemently disagree with Hillary, Souter, Stevens, or Kerry, but they're not morons. They make decisions that I disagree with, and support policies that I do not. That doesnt make them morons, it just makes them wrong.

Nah, it makes them morons. Just kidding

Seriously, though, I haven't voted in the poll yet. People on both sides of this issue have a chance to sway me to one side or the other. For me, there are 2 beliefs in conflict, and attempting to reconcile both of them is going to be a biatch. I look for some good discussion here, since I am going to be forced to compromise one of my beliefs in favor of the other.

 

[RightinNYC]

Nah, it makes them morons. Just kidding

Seriously, though, I haven't voted in the poll yet. People on both sides of this issue have a chance to sway me to one side or the other. For me, there are 2 beliefs in conflict, and attempting to reconcile both of them is going to be a biatch. I look for some good discussion here, since I am going to be forced to compromise one of my beliefs in favor of the other.

I can't vote in this poll because I don't see those as the questions.

The question isn't whether CO2 is considered a 'pollutant' (which I would agree it is), but whether it was considered a pollutant when the law was written (which I'm not convinced it was).

Also, the question isn't really whether its a federal or state issue, but whether its a leg or exec issue. (Neither stance has convinced me yet.)

 

[danarhea]

I can't vote in this poll because I don't see those as the questions.

The question isn't whether CO2 is considered a 'pollutant' (which I would agree it is), but whether it was considered a pollutant when the law was written (which I'm not convinced it was).

Also, the question isn't really whether its a federal or state issue, but whether its a leg or exec issue. (Neither stance has convinced me yet.)

The way I see it, CO2 either is or isnt a pollutant. I believe that, if it has the capacity to really screw up the environment for everyone, then it should not be a states rights issue, but a Federal one, since its effects are felt across state lines. My conundrum is that I have always believed that a market solution is best, but this case is putting an important part of my Libertarian beliefs to the test. I still believe that, ultimately, a market solution IS best, but at what price, since the market tends to move rather slowly, only arriving at a solution once a need for that solution has been clearly demonstrated. In this case, once the need for a market solution has been established, will it be too late to avert a major catastrophe? This is why I am on the fence at this time. I am strongly Libertarian, but at the same time, I strongly believe that global warming is man-made, and is a serious issue. If I stand with a market solution, I may be on the wrong side this time, but if I stand with government intervention, then I seriously compromise my strong beliefs against government interference. I am going to have to make a decision as to which belief gets diluted if I am going to to be honest about the situation, and with myself.

 

[RightinNYC]

The way I see it, CO2 either is or isnt a pollutant. I believe that, if it has the capacity to really screw up the environment for everyone, then it should not be a states rights issue, but a Federal one, since its effects are felt across state lines. My conundrum is that I have always believed that a market solution is best, but this case is putting an important part of my Libertarian beliefs to the test. I still believe that, ultimately, a market solution IS best, but at what price, since the market tends to move rather slowly, only arriving at a solution once a need for that solution has been clearly demonstrated. In this case, once the need for a market solution has been established, will it be too late to avert a major catastrophe? This is why I am on the fence at this time. I am strongly Libertarian, but at the same time, I strongly believe that global warming is man-made, and is a serious issue. If I stand with a market solution, I may be on the wrong side this time, but if I stand with government intervention, then I seriously compromise my strong beliefs against government interference. I am going to have to make a decision as to which belief gets diluted if I am going to to be honest about the situation, and with myself.

But that's not the issue though. The problem is this.

Let's say that when the law was passed, congress didn't intend for CO2 to be considered a pollutant. Now, if the EPA were to decide 16 years later that it was, they would be acting beyond their authority as granted by Congress because that wasnt what the law originally intended.

The solution to this, (if this is the case) is NOT to have the courts be in charge of deciding legislature. It's to have the legislature DO ITS JOB and pass the relevant and necessary laws.

This is the side product of the last 20 years of jurisprudence where the legislature has continued to shift decision making onto the courts. Congress loves it because it frees them from having to make tough decisions, and far too many in the judiciary are all too willing to set the law aside and introduce their own policy positions.


Let's let each branch do what it's supposed to do.

 

[danarhea]

But that's not the issue though. The problem is this.

Let's say that when the law was passed, congress didn't intend for CO2 to be considered a pollutant. Now, if the EPA were to decide 16 years later that it was, they would be acting beyond their authority as granted by Congress because that wasnt what the law originally intended.

The solution to this, (if this is the case) is NOT to have the courts be in charge of deciding legislature. It's to have the legislature DO ITS JOB and pass the relevant and necessary laws.

This is the side product of the last 20 years of jurisprudence where the legislature has continued to shift decision making onto the courts. Congress loves it because it frees them from having to make tough decisions, and far too many in the judiciary are all too willing to set the law aside and introduce their own policy positions.


Let's let each branch do what it's supposed to do.

Good argument, it makes sense to me, and I agree. However, that does not mitigate my own conundrum on the issue. LOL.

 

[jfuh]

Again, because you don't understand the relevance of the question doesn't mean it isn't there.

The reason why whether the cataclysm is imminent or not is relevant is because in order to pursue a suit like this, petitioners must have standing. According to the way our justice system is constructed, if actual injury cannot be shown, there is no standing. The point Scalia is making is the same one that a different 12th Circuit court judge supported in the rejection of this case - the petitioners have to show that:

a) The problem is specific, tangible, and imminent
b) That they personally or the entities they represent are being harmed by it
c) That the injury would be tangibly lessened by a decision in their favor, and d) That the injury is specific to them, rather than being a general problem attributable to the world.

I don't recall any of the petitioners arguing that there was a cataclism approaching, yet Scalia brought it up - and for the purpose of? It's clear to the rest of the world exactly what Scalia meant - that is to be sarcastic and down play the entirety of the situation. If it was cataclysmic then it's "untangible". If they can not show when exactly the "cataclysm" is, then it's not imminent.
b) Massacheusettes has shown that they are being harmed. You can not put a capt on air pollution, it crosses our imaginary borders, or did you not already know that?
c) Lower greenhouse emissions and you have C satisfied as well. Yet again, Scalia's sarcastic remark about a cataclysm hinted that the situation would not be remedied with any ruling. It's obvious how he thinks of the situation and that being - whatever Cheny says.
D) Sounded like what the industry argued against the clean air act in the 70's.

Your snide and dismissive comments do nothing but show your belief that the justice system should work the way you want, rather than the way it does.

My dismissive comment has not been toward the way the justices will rule but specific to what one specific justice's remarks were. That being snide and dismissive for obvious politically connected reasons. So save your ridicules for the actual issue at hand rather than being the first poster in this thread to attack another member.

He's a moron to me and I'll call him a moron as much as I please. If he's so incredibly educated and "knowledgeable" about the issue at hand, then it's all the more idiotic to have made the "snide and dismissive" remarks he made in the hearing. You continuously try to defend what he has said when it was obvious of the "intent". So spare me your lecturing and personal feelings towards your avatar.

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't recall any of the petitioners arguing that there was a cataclism approaching, yet Scalia brought it up - and for the purpose of? It's clear to the rest of the world exactly what Scalia meant - that is to be sarcastic and down play the entirety of the situation. If it was cataclysmic then it's "untangible". If they can not show when exactly the "cataclysm" is, then it's not imminent.
b) Massacheusettes has shown that they are being harmed. You can not put a capt on air pollution, it crosses our imaginary borders, or did you not already know that?
c) Lower greenhouse emissions and you have C satisfied as well. Yet again, Scalia's sarcastic remark about a cataclysm hinted that the situation would not be remedied with any ruling. It's obvious how he thinks of the situation and that being - whatever Cheny says.
D) Sounded like what the industry argued against the clean air act in the 70's.

My dismissive comment has not been toward the way the justices will rule but specific to what one specific justice's remarks were. That being snide and dismissive for obvious politically connected reasons. So save your ridicules for the actual issue at hand rather than being the first poster in this thread to attack another member.

He's a moron to me and I'll call him a moron as much as I please. If he's so incredibly educated and "knowledgeable" about the issue at hand, then it's all the more idiotic to have made the "snide and dismissive" remarks he made in the hearing. You continuously try to defend what he has said when it was obvious of the "intent". So spare me your lecturing and personal feelings towards your avatar.

You know what jfuh? You're right. Scalia is a moron who has no idea what he's talking about. It's completely impossible that he's actually addressing a legal issue that you don't comprehend. He's clearly just an idiot who makes his Harvard Law Review-educated decisions based solely on what "Cheny" thinks. You got it.:roll:

 

[jfuh]

You know what jfuh? You're right. Scalia is a moron who has no idea what he's talking about. It's completely impossible that he's actually addressing a legal issue that you don't comprehend. He's clearly just an idiot who makes his Harvard Law Review-educated decisions based solely on what "Cheny" thinks. You got it.:roll:

Did I say that Scalia was a moron that had no idea what he's talking about?
I stated quite clearly, without you dishonestly twisting my words, that he's a moron for asking about when the exact cataclysm will occur - dismissive of all the evidence.
In other words, he knows the evidence but refuses to accept it, that makes him a moron.
It's like I know I see the sun rises daily from the east, but I insist that it rises from the west and will ridicule all those that see otherwise in a dismissive and sarcastic fashion.

 

[Gill]

Did I say that Scalia was a moron....

... that makes him a moron.

OH, I understand now.. I think??

:doh

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A serious issue? How is asking "when is the cataclysm" making it a serious issue. It's completely trying to dismiss the issue as irrelevant and yes Scalia is trying to get the court to decline to address it - hence the sarcastic remark. If he was any the more knowledgable he would understand the irrelevance of his question. Just what was it supposed to address? If the cataclysm is far away it's not a big deal? If the cataclysm is tomorrow then it's too late to do anything?
So yes, Scalia is a moron.

lol maybe you guys should actually prove that cutting CO2 levels would end global warming in the first place.

 

[jfuh]

lol maybe you guys should actually prove that cutting CO2 levels would end global warming in the first place.

To you? The person that in true debates admits to global warming and the causes of but then roams around in the regular forums as if it doesn't? Right sure.

 

[Gill]

lol maybe you guys should actually prove that cutting CO2 levels would end global warming in the first place.

Even the most optimistic of the AGW fanatics claim only a few tenths of a degree difference if Kyoto is fully implemented... and almost no country is meeting Kyoto now.

A few tenths of a degree in temperature drop at a cost of trillions of dollars... yeah, that makes sense.

 

[jfuh]

Even the most optimistic of the AGW fanatics claim only a few tenths of a degree difference if Kyoto is fully implemented... and almost no country is meeting Kyoto now.

A few tenths of a degree in temperature drop at a cost of trillions of dollars... yeah, that makes sense.

Trillions of dollars? A few tenths of a degree?
Funny, where did that figure of trillions come from?
And I thought your premise has always been that human beings can not make any alteration on the climate yet you've stated a few tenths this by only the few countries that have signed on in the midst of the US, China and India all overcompensating for the decreased emissions from those signatory industrialized nations. Seems like we can make a difference.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

To you? The person that in true debates admits to global warming and the causes of but then roams around in the regular forums as if it doesn't? Right sure.

No I admit that global warming is occurring but not that man plays a signifigant enough roll in it to warrant destroying our economy over there are far more natural reasons why it is occurring which are totally out of our hands.

 

[jfuh]

No I admit that global warming is occurring but not that man plays a signifigant enough roll in it to warrant destroying our economy over there are far more natural reasons why it is occurring which are totally out of our hands.

Destruction of the economy?
China has far higher gas milage requirements for thier vehicles then the US, yet at a seemingly unslowing 8% growth would hardly be what I call destruction of the economy.
In otherwords, yes, current carbon hungry industries would be obliterated, but that is long overdue. The economy wouldn't even hiccup, it'd simply change from the current carbon hungry economy to that of a carbon neutral economy. The "economy" will be destroyed is an unproven myth cooked up by the energy industry.
If man plays no "significant" role in the current warming, then do tell, what is?
Why is it that now, after 650,000 years we are seeing an unprecedented level of CO2 in the atmosphere, which even you admit is responsible for the warming trend.

 

[Gill]

Trillions of dollars? A few tenths of a degree?
Funny, where did that figure of trillions come from?
And I thought your premise has always been that human beings can not make any alteration on the climate yet you've stated a few tenths this by only the few countries that have signed on in the midst of the US, China and India all overcompensating for the decreased emissions from those signatory industrialized nations. Seems like we can make a difference.

I'm not saying that Kyoto will have a minimal effect, scientists are. The latest estimate I've seen is that full Kyoto implementation will lower global temperatures by a massive .06 - .11 degrees C by 2100. ANY amount of money spent for that is a waste.

A few countries have signed on?? How about 166, including China and India. The main objection the US and Australia has about Kyoto is that China and India do not have to comply with any emissions reductions, they are exempt. This despite the fact that China is now the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, and is projected to be the largest by 2030.

If you want to see the main thrust behind this global warming nonsense, there is one easy way... follow the money.

Yeah, sure we can make a difference. We can destroy our economies to lower global temperatures by a whopping .11 degrees C. Yep, sounds like a sound investment to me.

 

[Girolamo Savonarola]

Imagine how much "global warming" would improve if Al Gore would just shut his mouth!!!!!!:lol:

 

[jfuh]

I'm not saying that Kyoto will have a minimal effect, scientists are. The latest estimate I've seen is that full Kyoto implementation will lower global temperatures by a massive .06 - .11 degrees C by 2100. ANY amount of money spent for that is a waste.

Has anyone brought up Kyoto? seems you're the only one. There are other methods far stronger than the petty goals set by Kyoto - aka formation of a Kyoto 2.0. However the only reason that Kyoto 1.0 is so weak is because few nations were willing to sign on to it in the first place, as well as the GOP controlled congress of '98 unwilling to allow Clinton to do anything to "harm the economy" - ironic given the few instances you ever heard the neocons quibble about economy.

A few countries have signed on?? How about 166, including China and India.

And what percentage of total annual green house gas production do 166 countries together make? We the US are still by far the #1 producer of greenhouse gases - which is why any international treaty to limit greenhouse gas production is useless without us as a signatory.

The main objection the US and Australia has about Kyoto is that China and India do not have to comply with any emissions reductions, they are exempt.

Wow, there's a self contradiction in itself. China and india have not complied with Kyoto, and then they are exempt. How can they be non-compliance if they're exempt? I'll take this as but a simple mistake on your behalf and not some dishonest attempt to smear the facts. But this is not the major objection that the US had back in the day to not sign on. The major reason is that Detroit, Exxon, Enron (yeah back then) would've had thier profit margins "hurt". So for Detroit, instead of increasing competitiveness they relied on protectionism from the government.

This despite the fact that China is now the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, and is projected to be the largest by 2030.

Yes it's a big problem; frankly I don't know if it will even take that long for China to surpass us, but till then we are still Numero Uno. Are we no better than communist Chinese?

If you want to see the main thrust behind this global warming nonsense, there is one easy way... follow the money.

Lol, I couldn't have said it better myself, indeed follow the money and just look at who is saying there's no such thing or that we are not the cause.

Yeah, sure we can make a difference. We can destroy our economies to lower global temperatures by a whopping .11 degrees C. Yep, sounds like a sound investment to me.

Again, there's zero evidence to support your lie. Europe, Japan, hell even China all have far stricter limits on fuel economy than we do, yet Toyota seems to be top dog these days for automotive production - out pacing the big 3 together by 10 times the market volume. Something tells me you've no idea what you're talking about.
Who ever said that I agreed with Kyoto? I've stated repeatedly in the past that it's a good start but it's insufficient, not enough teeth for enforcement or penalization.