Particulate Harm
U.S. Supreme Court rules E.P.A. must regulate greenhouse gases, in spite of excellent counter arguments by Chief Justice Roberts:
“Under the [Clean Air] Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate… These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment.”
“Petitioners’ difficulty in demonstrating causation and redressability is not surprising given the evident mis-match between the source of their alleged injury—catastrophic global warming—and the narrow subject matter of the Clean Air Act provision at issue in this suit. The mismatch suggests that petitioners’ true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else.” — Roberts, C. J., dissenting.
Source: Supreme Court Ruling No. 05–1120.
Scalia quotes the dated 2001 report on global warming in dissention. The recent 2007 summary for policy makers from the IPCC strengthens the linkage: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (90% confidence) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
I welcome the ruling, given that the executive office appears busy suppressing climate research, as part of their “comprehensive approach” to greenhouse gas emissions.
Technorati Tags: CO2