This story is archived
Supreme Court Says CO2 is a Pollutant! »
Posted by: Searchbeam 2 years, 8 months agoThe Supreme court ordered EPA to rethink its objection to declaring CO2 as a major pollutant. It has declared that CO2 is a major pollutant by a majority of 5-4, with 4 conservative Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito dissenting!
Read Full Story at sfgate.com »
Submitted By:
Searchbeam
I am a humanitarian, believer in non-violence and respect all forms of life, especially animals.
I believe in the fundamental decency of human beings.
Politically ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 66
-
Searchbeam
April 2, 2007, 3:42 p.m.This is a serious rebuke to the Bush Administration policy of "See no evil, Speak no evil, Hear no evil" policy regarding greenhouse gases that are polluting the atmosphere and are considered major contributors to Global Warming!
Bush EPA has caused more damage to this planet than anything else.
This is a wake-up call!
Peace and Blessings!
-
berkeley
April 2, 2007, 7:53 p.m.federal rules that prevent a state, like california, from protecting its citizens, are usually examples of money in action. states rights needs a resurgence, and scalia could actually be an ally in that, though so far he hasn't.
this ruling will have many repercussions, mostly dealing with cleaner air. and it only took how many years?
-
catstevensComment has been removed: User banned.
-
spkguy
April 2, 2007, 9:10 p.m.US fudging of climate science - details revealed
The committee heard from James Hansen, the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and one of the first scientists to warn of the threat of climate change.
In written testimony, Hansen said: "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now."
-
spkguy
April 2, 2007, 9:21 p.m.So how did George Bush do on the environment whe he was the Governor of Texas?
"TOM BEARDEN: Environmentalists point to the fact that during Bush's tenure, Texas has achieved the dubious distinction, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, of having the dirtiest air in America, of ranking 47th in water quality, and having the seventh-highest rate of release of toxic industrial byproducts onto its land. Ken Kramer is the Sierra Club's Texas state director."
"KEN KRAMER: Our assessment of Governor Bush on the environment is that basically he's shown a great deal of indifference to the environment, and his indifference to the environment has allowed people such as those in industry to really call the shots on environmental policy. As a result, we haven't seen any real progress in Texas in the last five years on the environment."
-
Bkumm
April 2, 2007, 10:04 p.m.BOOM, SHA-LOCK, LOCK, BOOM. Hmmmm, so five of the most deliberative people that we know decided that the EPA not only has the duty, but the responsibility to monitor and regulate CO2.
The tide is starting to turn on the global climate change skeptics.
-
not2needy
April 2, 2007, 10:49 p.m.Bush has paid and threatened scientists to keep quiet about this since day one. To concern himself or anyone else regarding greenhouse gases and CO2 would have meant that some of the attention and money would have to be spent there instead of going to fund his war on the whole middle east, and would probably have cut into his part of the profits.
-
jordan11
April 2, 2007, 10:54 p.m.OK. The court says that EPA has not provided evidence that CO2 is not a pollutant, & it must be addressed under the clean air act. Now we see just 'how' they address it. The pressure from business will be strong, as always. Maybe it's business we need to be pressuring, rather than the people they pay off.
-
catstevensComment has been removed: User banned.
-
lfergie812
April 3, 2007, 1:26 a.m.There's not much that a person can say except we sure do have a problem that some people deny exist.
-
deathray
April 3, 2007, 8:14 a.m.The decision says that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases in automobile emissions under the Clean Air Act; the Supreme Court has not mandated what these standards should be. That's still up to the EPA. This WILL have a greater and more wide ranging impact when other large industries are required not to pollute the air with more greenhouse gases.
It's unlikely that the EPA under the Bush 43 Administration will create these standards, but it's inevitable that later Administrations will take up the task of writing them.
-
Amazing1
April 3, 2007, 10:03 a.m.For the people out there who seem to think that the court made the wrong decision, I have this to ask: What is wrong with cleaning up the environment? How is cleaner air a threat to your life? Don't you think cleaner water would be a good thing? So you don't believe in global climate change or that mankind has anything to do with it, does that mean we should just pollute away like there's no tomorrow?
And for those of you who claim it's too expensive, just where are you gonna buy another planet with the money you'll save by doing nothing but continuing to pollute?
And there are plenty of opportunities to make money by developing technologies that will soften the footprint of our species on the only planet we have.
I applaud the victory in the Supreme Court!
-
Eagle_Eye
April 3, 2007, 10:11 a.m.I saw this yesterday and couldn't believe that finally the Supreme Court stood up for the American people and the planet.
I think the fact that it is individual states seeking to make a difference in air quality and CO2 emissions that this passed.
If this was a federal issue I think they would of dragged their feet for another couple years.
Each step helps make a difference, now all states should follow in the leading states foot prints. What I feel is so great is that it included coal power plants!
-
catstevensComment has been removed: User banned.
-
Perceptioniseverything
April 3, 2007, 12:20 p.m.Don't be fooled people, they are using reverse psychology on you. We all know there is global warming, but what can you really do about it? Nothing, is the reality. We have messed this place up and there's nothing we can do about it. The very act of trying only increases waste and day by day our population grows. So, why all of the hysteria all of a sudden? Politics and global regulations. The whole point is to be able to subject the everyday consumer to household regulations that would in turn allow govt into your home. It's just one of the fronts to the start of a new world order were human rights don't exist. It's the same play over and over, create a dier situation and then act like you're the hero so people will follow. It reminds me of the mafia. Check Nancy Pelosi's family history and then check Bush's and tell me these are our leaders? America's leaders?
-
Macondo
April 3, 2007, 1:35 p.m.Perception.
Not everything is subjective.
The real world is a combination of objective and subjective.
I do not deny the reality of the German term-concept "Gestalt".
There is a lot we could do and have to do starting ASAP.
If you think fighting pollution is hysteria and there is "nothing we can do" try trashing your every days environment at home do not clean, do not prevent, do not flush the toilet.
-
ronaldus
April 3, 2007, 2:37 p.m.Anthropogenic global warming is dimpled-chad science.
The Left has gotten tired of pretending to believe in democracy because they lose a lot of elections, and any election they lose had to be "stolen."
They want to establish a fake-science dictatorship in place of democracy, and they want to run it, of course.
-
cm_samuels
April 3, 2007, 5:57 p.m.There is no possible way in a scientific sense, that CO2 is in any way shape or form, pollution.
The problem with global warming is the naked power grabbing going on by judges, attorneys, plaintiffs & defendants in the US legal system, not with anything fundamentally to do with the pollution of our ecosystem by CO2.
The majority opinion of the SCOTUS upholds the lawyers' wet-dream of all time. In effect the court has ruled that there is no requirement for learned scientific investigation of any sort.
If a situation is unresolved or undetermined yet possess the possibility for lawyers to be able to fatten themselves with never ending litigation against those able to pay fantastic sums in penalties, that the law will side in favor of those that manipulate the law.
-
catstevensComment has been removed: User banned.
-
-
getreal1
April 4, 2007, 11:45 a.m.Any ruling against pollution of the air should be welcomed. It is a step to promote the health of the human being. We have had at our disposal plenty of ideas that can be used to help the earth's environment. They have not been used because Certain rich fat cats cannot get it through their heads that man could be in a world of plenty with peace. They feel their tyrant power slip away with solutions to troubles. So they white wash the meanings of words in the dictionary to suit their pockets. They ignore the common sense in place of their pockets.
All 66 comments are shown.
Submit a Story
Advertisement
