Supreme Court considers Regulating C02

Supreme Court agrees to consider forcing the Bush administration to regulate carbon dioxide, a gas linked to climate change, from motor vehicles.

banner on CNN.com at the top.

too little too late?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/26/scotus.environment.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (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.

The decision means the court will address whether the administration's decision to rely on voluntary measures to combat climate change are legal under federal clean air laws.

"This is the whole ball of wax. This will determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency is to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and whether EPA can regulate carbon dioxide from power plants," said David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club.

Bookbinder said if the court upholds the administration's argument it also could jeopardize plans by California and 10 other states, including most of the Northeast, to require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles
-more-

Won't happen.

What are the odds the the bushbot justices will rule that the government does NOT need to regulate CO2? Pretty damn good I would imagine.

WASHINGTON - 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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554243/

Don't I remember correctly that the only reason this is true is that in 2002 the * administration simply re-wrote the guidelines and, by executive fiat, declared that CO2 was not a pollutantand struck it from the list, although it previously had been one? By a stroke of the pen, they reduced air pollution by 25%.

No?

to do.

Have we not learned this lesson already?

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5118792.stm>

CO2. They were saying it's good for us. Hmmm, that won't sit right with them at all, not at all...

chimpy mcmonkey pants* is spinning his bullshit to make it look as if he never saw Al Gores movie, now the fucking whole cast of the supremes is jumping on the band wagon.

"oh I have constantly been saying green house gases are bad for us, blah blah blah blah blah..."

The timing is impeccable.

fucking johnny come lately's.

colossal racist chichenhawk oil puppet failure*