WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming. 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.
It makes sense to me: global warming is a legitimate and important issue, much CO2 comes from cars and trucks, therefore the EPA can and should step in and do something about it.
ag4ever- Not to be gross, but by that logic, excrement couldn't possibly be pollution and we wouldn't be allowed to have sewage treatment regulations.
Back on point, though: This is a tremendous victory for the environmentalists, but it may not have too many immediate consequences. Even if the EPA in fact CAN regulate global warming gases, under this administration we all know that it won't. Even though the consequences of delaying are probably going to be severe and even though it's irresponsible not to deal with our own messes instead of just passing them on to the next generation, that may well be what the government does for now.
The next President will almost certainly be someone with a better attitude about this and a deeper understanding of the issue. So in this as in so many other major policies, we'll just have to wait until Bush's term is up, and hope for better things to come. Under this Supreme Court decision, though, at least the state actions that are going forward to try to make changes sooner won't be stopped.
I honestly believe in good faith that George W Bush will be remembered as the guy who led us thru 9/11 for a couple of weeks, but then for the other 7.9999 years of his term was one of the most ignorant and incompetant presidents to ever swear the oath.
I am not necessarily some bleeding heart democrat. I think Ronnie was a great prez.
This guy cared way to much for HIS legacy and his rich buddies than he really did the country as a whole. I swear this guy is drop dead stupid.
Has anyone else stopped to think about this for a second :
Does anyone remember Osama Bin Laden ? The guy who masterminded the 9/11 disaster? Well, its 5 1/2 years later:
-we dont have a clue where the guy is , let alone catch the guy and hold him responsible for his misdeeds. Doesnt that tell the rest of the world that they can go blow up the united states, and nothing will be done about it?
-we instead ignore bin laden, and depose a guy who had no connections to Bin Laden nor mass destruction weapons, and spend 2 billion bucks a week trying to stabilize a country that doesnt want us there and cannot be stabilized.
-meanwhile, Bin Laden must be dancing around somewhere, cracking up at how this could never have turned out better for him or Al Queda in his wildest dreams.
How long do we have until we get another president? It wont be soon enough.
Here's the problem. You (and the Supremes) are reasonable.
Bush is a fool and it seems is unable to get the difference between a noun and an adjective. As in, "Democrat Party". See what I mean? Ignorant to boot.
Last edited by centrider; 04-03-2007 at 06:08 PM.
Reason: Added paragraph
You know, even as a Republican I've stood by and watched GW's presidency fall short in important areas, but I don't think he deserves the scathing criticism often directed to him - remember there's an entire government full of Democrats and Republicans alike that can shoulder some blame. It's not all one guy.
Also consider this - yes, we have not found Ben-Laden in 5 1/2 years but it's a harder job than most folks can possibly imagine. Also, how many terrorist attacks have occured on American soil since? America has to be the easiest country to operate terrorism in, and we get nothing compared to Germany, France or Brittan. There's a lot going on out there that we don't see or hear about that's keeping us safe. I think history will look back on this time and credit GW for doing a lot of things he can't take credit for right now. I'm not saying he should be free from criticism (on the environment especially), I'm not saying at times he doesn't come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer, but unless you had to dodge a road-side bomb on the way to work yesterday, I think a little credit is due to the man.
Oh, and on the topic - I think forcing emmission standards is a great way to start getting the kind of cars we all want on the road. As I said in another thread - don't tax the gas, don't penalize all of us with high prices, change the rules that force auto makers to build different cars.
To keep things on subject, I would observe that the EPA is run by those against treating CO(2) as a pollutant. That the EPA can regulate CO(2) does not mean the EPA administration will move that way.
To keep things on subject, I would observe that the EPA is run by those against treating CO(2) as a pollutant. That the EPA can regulate CO(2) does not mean the EPA administration will move that way.
Bob Wilson
Maybe not right now, but the Supreme Court has given them the authority to do just that, which is good news.
I'm not a Bush-basher, I'm just unhappy with his energy/environmental do-nothing policies.
Re: Supremes Essentially Make Life Tougher on Gas Guzzlers
Back on topic, it's relatively easy to make a 6.0 liter vehicle nearly as clean as a 1.5 car....until you start limiting greenhouse gases. Unlike the other pollutants, the only way you reduce greenhouse gases is to burn less gas. To put it bluntly, Detroit is going to be forced to trim down it's gas guzzlers.
Supremes rule against Bush
