There were four dissenters in the decision. Bet you can't guess who they were.

 

Breaking: Supreme Court Sides Against Bush In Monumental Global Warming Case

 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today issued a “stunning rebuke” to the Bush administration and “ruled that the federal government does indeed have authority to regulate greenhouse gases linked to global warming.”

 

Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch writes, “The Supreme Court has confirmed that carbon dioxide can be controlled under the Clean Air Act. That means California and other states have the clear right to limit greenhouse gas emissions if the Bush administration won’t.”

 

http://www.blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/

Why wouldn't you be able to regulate CO2? What was the argument against it?

Why wouldn't you be able to regulate CO2? What was the argument against it?

 

the 'argument' - wholly non-scientific - revolved around the administration's adamant stance against calling CO2 a pollutant. As long as they could get EPA to fight that designation, they could argue that the Clean Air Act doesn't apply here.

Where the hell did you find that avatar?

 

Where the hell did you find that avatar?

 

It's a clip I'd seen around but the other day I saw it on a blog as an animated GIF so I swiped it.

I didn't realize Diana Ross was that into politics...

I didn't realize Diana Ross was that into politics...

.

Stop in the name of love . . .

This decision further solidifies Kennedy as the "swing vote" of this court w/ Alito & Roberts predictably apart of the conservative wing.

I didn't realize Diana Ross was that into politics...

i thought the SAME thing

Even a person who thinks that the idea humans are causing global warming is BS like me thinks that C02 can and should be regulated. I mean why the hell wouldn't somebody want cleaner air, or at least to try and create cleaner air?

Even a person who thinks that the idea humans are causing global warming is BS like me thinks that C02 can and should be regulated. I mean why the hell wouldn't somebody want cleaner air, or at least to try and create cleaner air?

I agree wholly and I am glad the vote went in favor of the clean air act.

Even a person who thinks that the idea humans are causing global warming is BS like me thinks that C02 can and should be regulated. I mean why the hell wouldn't somebody want cleaner air, or at least to try and create cleaner air?

 

The argument is that it will hurt economically and developmentally.

 

Costs of energy will increase due to tighter emissions controls. That obviously effects every single person and business in this country.

 

Also, more and more money will be dumped into research and development of systems to control CO2 output instead of investing the time and money into other things.

 

So, we need to figure out whether or not CO2 emissions are really as big of a problem as some might think or if its a little overblown.

So, we need to figure out whether or not CO2 emissions are really as big of a problem as some might think or if its a little overblown.

We already have figured that out. It's just that a lot of people with a lot of money don't like the answer.

 

Even a person who thinks that the idea humans are causing global warming is BS like me thinks that C02 can and should be regulated. I mean why the hell wouldn't somebody want cleaner air, or at least to try and create cleaner air?

If you think that anthropogenic climate change is not happening, then you have no reason to support CO2 regulations. CO2 at current concentrations is simply unnoticeable by humanity. CO2 is non-toxic and not noticeable by humanity until CO2 gets to about 2% of the air you're breathing...about 20,000 ppm. This whole issue of CO2 caused climate change relates do CO2 shifts on the order of a few hundred ppm, from about 300 to about 350 ppm or so in recent yearsa.

I have more to say, but I need to study for my Global Business exam. Toodles!