Skip to main content

Supreme Court to Hear Global Warming Case

Just off the wire from the AP:
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court's most important decisions on the environment.

A dozen states, a number of cities and various environmental groups asked the court to take up the case after a divided lower court ruled against them.

They argue that the Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act because as the primary "greenhouse" gas causing a warming of the earth, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

The administration maintains that carbon dioxide -- unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to assure healthy air -- is not a pollutant under the federal clean air law, and that even if it were the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it.

A federal appeals court sided with the administration in a sharply divided ruling.
More later.

UPDATE: From SCOTUS Blog:
In the EPA case, that agency concluded that it did not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" from new cars and trucks and, even if it had that authority, it would not exercise it for policy reasons. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld that ruling, but the Justices agreed on Monday to hear an appeal by Massachusetts, 11 other states, three cities, and a variety of environmental groups. Both issues -- EPA's authority, and its discretion not to regulate in this field, are before the Court in the case. The cases do not directly raise a "standing" issue, although that was debated vigorously in the Circuit Court and by EPA in replying to the appeal. Presumably, the Justices will have to determine on their own if any of the challengers did have a right to sue.
UPDATE: Coincidentally, today E&E TV is featuring an interview with David Conover, Republican Counsel to the National Commission on Energy Policy:
Conover, former director of the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) and current counsel to the National Commission on Energy Policy, discusses why he believes a market signal is needed to spur action on climate change, and whether President Bush would ever endorse that strategy. Conover also explains why he feels the administration has the right idea when it comes to international partnerships on global warming.
Click here for a transcript.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

.. said…
Thanks for covering the global warming issue closely!

I believe that the increasing body of evidence linking global warming to fossil fuel use is a superb argument in favor of nuclear energy.

Energy independence and the fossil fuel supply problem complete the case for a strong reinvestment in nuclear energy.
.. said…
Thanks for covering the global warming issue closely!

I believe that the increasing body of evidence linking global warming to fossil fuel use is a superb argument in favor of nuclear energy.

Energy independence and the fossil fuel supply problem complete the case for a strong reinvestment in nuclear energy and for simplifying the regulatory process associated with building new facilities.
Whitehall said…
Since every breath I take results in an exhalation and every exhalation contains carbon dioxide, are the environmentalists suing to have the Federal government REGULATE my breathing?

Isn't this a bit of an overreach?

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…