Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Global Warming? No Way!

In the ho-hum who-cares department:

1. CO2 emissions is not pollution? Fine. It matters not that if you fill your room with it you will die. Deadly, maybe. Poison, perhaps, but not a source of pollution. Only death.

Oh, but what about global warming?

2. EPA has no authority to regulate automobile CO2 emissions in America because, (a) it has no jurisdiction over CO2 as there can be no harm caused by something that is not a pollutant, and EPA jurisdiction is limited to harmful pollutants; (b) even if global warming is happening and is actually caused by CO2, which is a disputed fact in the govenment's view (the science is very "complex" to be precise), warming is not causing any harm, and (c) certainly there is no harm from the measley 6 percent of the total global CO2 emissions caused by American cars in any event, and (d) even if we took action emissions by other nations can't be stopped, so we might as well keep on polluting, and, I might add, we might as well be polluting as fast as we can.

Because then, after we've screwed up the ecological balance to the point that we know we did that for sure, and in other words we can be satisfied that it was not going to happen anyway which we can probably never know for sure, somebody will have to do something about it. But not us, because even if we do nobody else will have to. BTW, it is not only our coastline that is being lost due to non-harmful, non-human-being-caused, global non-warming not resulting in steadily rising sea levels.

3. Plaintiff's have not demonstrated any remediable injury, or standing.

Science seems to have shown already that the position of our government is wrong. We'll have to see if the court agrees.

My prediction? Justice Kennedy will side with science and standing. The other side, curiosly enough in this case just coincidentally happening to be on "the right" and "conservatives" (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) and that determine to stick with "the law" must be called "formalists". Formally, the Titanic did not strike the iceberg. The iceberg struck the Titanic which only happened to be on an intersecting course.

The transcript of arguments in this case is available here. What do you think?

No comments: