Supreme court needs some scientific education.

[Plane]

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17911853/

Whilst outside of US jurisdiction....

China is on course to overtake the United States this year as the world's biggest carbon emitter, estimates based on Chinese energy data show, potentially ....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17757576/

[Xavier_Onassis]

Quote
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.


China is on course to overtake the United States this year as the world's biggest carbon emitter, estimates based on Chinese energy data show, potentially ....

=====================================================================================
So your point is what?

           that the Supreme Court should help the US keep its title as the maximum polluter of the air we all must breathe?
         
           That the EPA should have no jurisdiction about this because Chinese Communist industry, in its haste to produce shlock for us to buy at Wal*Mart, might become even bigger fuck-ups than the Capitalist American industries they are trying to replace in the Race to the Bottom?

            On a per Capita basis, iot will take the Chinese a long time to catch up with us. There are four times as many of them as there are of us, so potentially, they could pollute as much as each of us do individually, but only if they managed to quadruple their per capita production of pollutants.

            I think the US Supreme Court should have jurisdiction over the Chinese, really.
 
            Or perhaps the Europeans should have jurisdictions over the US, the PRC, indeed, the whole flippin' world. The Belgians, as I understand it, have sufficient Black Helicopters to enforce the rules.

[The_Professor]

I propose that, effective immediately, we only purchase items at the store that are made in the USA unless there are NO products in that category made here. I just purchased an Oxford button-down shirt for $42 because it was made here. Ok, I'll bite. Will you?

[The_Professor]

Quote
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.


China is on course to overtake the United States this year as the world's biggest carbon emitter, estimates based on Chinese energy data show, potentially ....

=====================================================================================
So your point is what?

           that the Supreme Court should help the US keep its title as the maximum polluter of the air we all must breathe?
         
           That the EPA should have no jurisdiction about this because Chinese Communist industry, in its haste to produce shlock for us to buy at Wal*Mart, might become even bigger fuck-ups than the Capitalist American industries they are trying to replace in the Race to the Bottom?

            On a per Capita basis, iot will take the Chinese a long time to catch up with us. There are four times as many of them as there are of us, so potentially, they could pollute as much as each of us do individually, but only if they managed to quadruple their per capita production of pollutants.

            I think the US Supreme Court should have jurisdiction over the Chinese, really.
 
            Or perhaps the Europeans should have jurisdictions over the US, the PRC, indeed, the whole flippin' world. The Belgians, as I understand it, have sufficient Black Helicopters to enforce the rules.

How about a worldwide EPA? Should it have jurisdiction in all countries? What powers might it have? What enforcment might be necessary and available?

[Plane]

There are a lot of points to make .


The Supreme Court is defineing CO2 as a pollutant , this is rediculous.

The US increase in output of CO2 is tapering off and might even reverse with volentary actions , such as buying economical cars because they cost less to run and not because the goernment demands it.

The Chineese are human beings of the same sort we are and they long for the good life in the same way we do   , if we solve these problems with an austerity prgramme China will not follow us , rate the will point out that they have had two Centurys of Austerity and they still have need to catch up, but if we solve these problems with means that are attractive to the common American , the same methods will also appeal to the common Chineese , and this is where the rubber really meets the road.

[hnumpah]

I propose that, effective immediately, we only purchase items at the store that are made in the USA unless there are NO products in that category made here.

Well, let's see, I could have bought a Ford, or Chevy, or Dodge truck, rather than my Mitsubishi, but then most of the parts in those 'American' trucks are made outside the USA, even though they may be assembled here. Oh, yeah, and I would have probably paid an extra ten grand, at least, to get a comparable model.

I need a new television - are there any American manufacturers of those left?

My wife just got a new cell phone. It's a Motorola - that's American, right? Not so fast - it was manufactured overseas.

I just purchased an Oxford button-down shirt for $42 because it was made here. Ok, I'll bite. Will you?

No. First of all, I have all the Oxford button-down shirts I will ever need, since I don't wear dress shirts that often. The three I have are excellent quality, and I probably paid less than $42 for all three of them. Of course, that was five, six years ago, but even then...

I don't have an extra ten grand or so to spend on a truck, just so I can say I bought American. I don't buy $42 shirts for that luxury, either. When I can find quality American products for a comparable price, sure, I'll buy them. But when I can get items just as well made, or better, from overseas at a better price, why should I lay out my hard-earned cash for an overpriced product?

[Xavier_Onassis]

How about a worldwide EPA?  Clearly, a just World EPA would be an improvement of not having one.


Should it have jurisdiction in all countries? Of course. Otherwise it might not be worth the trouble.

 What powers might it have? It should have effective power to reduce pollution as well as CO2 production in as rapid a way as possible.

 What enforcement might be necessary and available? Effective enforcement, that would guarantee total compliance.

The problem is that powerful countries with powerful interests will probably prevent any such EPA from being created.

[Plane]

How about a worldwide EPA?  Clearly, a just World EPA would be an improvement of not having one.


Should it have jurisdiction in all countries? Of course. Otherwise it might not be worth the trouble.

 What powers might it have? It should have effective power to reduce pollution as well as CO2 production in as rapid a way as possible.

 What enforcement might be necessary and available? Effective enforcement, that would guarantee total compliance.

The problem is that powerful countries with powerful interests will probably prevent any such EPA from being created.

Perhaps such an agency could place a stamp of approval on products that are made in the most environmentally freindly way , this stamp could be good for sales .

The "Dolphin Safe" stamp has been good for the Tuna and dolphin problem .

[hnumpah]

[Xavier_Onassis]

Perhaps such an agency could place a stamp of approval on products that are made in the most environmentally freindly way , this stamp could be good for sales .

The "Dolphin Safe" stamp has been good for the Tuna and dolphin problem .
=======================================================

Would an "atmosphere safe" stamp be something that might appeal to the average Hummer customer?

My thought is that no, it wouldn't. The whole IDEA of a Hummer (at least for those who buy them here in flat, unmountainous and mostly paved  Miami-Dade County) is wretched excess. People buy a Hummer either intimidate other drivers, to make a politically incorrect statement, or to show off in some other way. A Green Hummer would be hard to sell to a typical Hummer driver.

One guy on my street has a plumbing business. He has had two Hummers, which he has named "The Plumber with the Hummer". I think he likes the rhyme. His Hummers had Montana plates, I suspect that saves him money on tag fees and insurance.

I have yet to see a plumber or dualie pickup with a Gore or Kerry bumpersticker.
--------------------------------------------------------------
No one shows off by eating any sort of tuna.

No one would seek to gain status or respect of their fellow man by publically chowing down on a can labled "tuna and assorted bits of Flipper".

While a social message might be useful for some products, I don't see it as being so for many other products.

[Amianthus]

The whole IDEA of a Hummer (at least for those who buy them here in flat, unmountainous and mostly paved  Miami-Dade County) is wretched excess. People buy a Hummer either intimidate other drivers, to make a politically incorrect statement, or to show off in some other way. A Green Hummer would be hard to sell to a typical Hummer driver.

So, which of those reasons was the justification for Miami-Dade Police Dept to buy Hummers?

I have yet to see a plumber or dualie pickup with a Gore or Kerry bumpersticker.

Go to Minnesota. You'll see lots of 'em up there.

[Plane]

Perhaps such an agency could place a stamp of approval on products that are made in the most environmentally freindly way , this stamp could be good for sales .

The "Dolphin Safe" stamp has been good for the Tuna and dolphin problem .
=======================================================

Would an "atmosphere safe" stamp be something that might appeal to the average Hummer customer?

My thought is that no, it wouldn't. The whole IDEA of a Hummer (at least for those who buy them here in flat, unmountainous and mostly paved  Miami-Dade County) is wretched excess. People buy a Hummer either intimidate other drivers, to make a politically incorrect statement, or to show off in some other way. A Green Hummer would be hard to sell to a typical Hummer driver.

One guy on my street has a plumbing business. He has had two Hummers, which he has named "The Plumber with the Hummer". I think he likes the rhyme. His Hummers had Montana plates, I suspect that saves him money on tag fees and insurance.

I have yet to see a plumber or dualie pickup with a Gore or Kerry bumpersticker.
--------------------------------------------------------------
No one shows off by eating any sort of tuna.

No one would seek to gain status or respect of their fellow man by publically chowing down on a can labled "tuna and assorted bits of Flipper".

While a social message might be useful for some products, I don't see it as being so for many other products.

Don't Gore and Kerrys family cars have Gore and Kerry Bumper stickers?

I wouldn't be surprised to see one on John Travoltas 707.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/comments/2007/03/26/44318


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/archive/may2004.htm

http://dvdpanache.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html

[Xavier_Onassis]

So, which of those reasons was the justification for Miami-Dade Police Dept to buy Hummers?


The Miami-Dade Police are seriously into intimidation.They are also quite fond of showing off.

It takes a particular sort of person to want to become an enforcer, doesn't it?

[Amianthus]

It takes a particular sort of person to want to become an enforcer, doesn't it?

No.

[domer]

While the ninny-whacks amongst us lament the Supreme Court's lack of scientific sophistication and impliedly its "policy choice" to remediate for global warming, the truth is that the Court issued no such policy ruling and had its science right as far as that impacted the decision. The question was whether the EPA was empowered to regulate auto emissions and other greenhouse gases, and it found that Congress has provided that authority in the Clean Air Act, not whether or how it should be exercised. As the Lexus-Nexus blurb introducing the case notes: "EPA erroneously declined to regulate motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases which allegedly contributed to global warming, since the Clean Air Act authorized EPA to regulate such gases and executive policy addressing global warming was irrelevant to EPA's statutory mandate to determine whether the gases contributed to harmful climate change."