Gwobow Woming Wuds
fun with words at the supreme court:
"Isn't it intuitively reasonable to suppose that with some reduction of the greenhouse gases, there will be some reduction of the ensuing damage or the ensuing climate change which causes the damage?"
“So the harm is already occurring. It is ongoing, and it will happen well into the future.”
“Why do they have to show a precise correlation? It is reasonable to suppose that some reduction in the gases will result in some reduction in future loss.” It was “a question of more or less, not a question of either/or,” he said, adding: “They don’t have to stop global warming. Their point is that it will reduce the degree of global warming and likely reduce the degree of loss.”
“Would you be up here saying the same thing if we’re trying to regulate child pornography, and it turns out that anyone with a computer can get pornography elsewhere?”
now these:
"There's something of a consensus on warming, but not a consensus on how much is attributable to human activity,"
“You have to show the harm is imminent. I mean, when is the cataclysm?”
"I think it has to endanger health by reason of polluting the air, and this does not endanger health by reason of polluting the air at all,"
motor vehicles account for only about 6 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, even aggressive federal regulation would not be great enough to make a difference
“That assumes everything else is going to remain constant, though, right? It assumes there isn’t going to be a greater contribution of greenhouse gases from economic development in China and other places that’s going to displace whatever marginal benefit you get here.”
“Congress has not authorized it to embark on this regulatory endeavor.”
[T]he federal government should not be forced "to embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain" global issue of greenhouse gas emissions. "Now is not the time to exercise such authority."
::
So global warming has reached the supreme court. I'm not sure where this case is at this point. there was a lot of reporting on it about 1 week ago, and I haven't heard much since then. The stakes may or may not be that big for the larger issue of energy. I think the best to hope for is that the supreme court orders the EPA to reconsider their policy--not much of a threat, but these legal precedents have a way of becoming influential, no?
What's with the China/rest of the world argument? Why would that ever be an argument? It's as if he's ignoring one simple fact: if it can work in america, it can work anywhere, just like democracy or free markets. Ok bad examples, but you get the idea--we play some kind of alleged leadership role in the world. It's not that the rest of the world will obediently fall in to step. But if it makes money in america, a lot of money, everyone will notice. The new energy project, some say, can make a lot of money. I think it could potentially create a bigger economic impact than the internet (or internal combustion? steam power? ceramics?).
So what's the problem? If it's going to be such a good thing and make all kinds of money, why aren't people just striking ahead. Well, some are. But the thing is they don't really have to right now. "It's" not really a problem right now. Many businesses are dipping their toes in mostly due to the buzz surrounding greater energy efficiency. The argument here seems to be whether or not dipping our toes is adequate, or if instead we need to clamp down with some federal regulations (mind you it's still not really "diving in" because this case is only about car emissions. I'm not even sure if this includes truck and bus, and I know it doesn't include factories).
So let's not dally with whether or not we should do anything because 'what's it going to matter anyways no one else is going to do anything.' We should do something, of course. Scalia is right by framing the argument on imminence, but why does he pitter patter about stratosphere versus atmosphere? The issue of imminent doom is an interesting one in this case. The case for invading Iraq also hinged on imminence--sadaam posed an immediate threat according to our intelligence. But climate change is not the same as WMD's. I think by the time global warming is an imminent threat, there will be nothing we can do about it. Perhaps there is nothing we can do now, but I still think we should try.
"Isn't it intuitively reasonable to suppose that with some reduction of the greenhouse gases, there will be some reduction of the ensuing damage or the ensuing climate change which causes the damage?"
“So the harm is already occurring. It is ongoing, and it will happen well into the future.”
“Why do they have to show a precise correlation? It is reasonable to suppose that some reduction in the gases will result in some reduction in future loss.” It was “a question of more or less, not a question of either/or,” he said, adding: “They don’t have to stop global warming. Their point is that it will reduce the degree of global warming and likely reduce the degree of loss.”
“Would you be up here saying the same thing if we’re trying to regulate child pornography, and it turns out that anyone with a computer can get pornography elsewhere?”
now these:
"There's something of a consensus on warming, but not a consensus on how much is attributable to human activity,"
“You have to show the harm is imminent. I mean, when is the cataclysm?”
"I think it has to endanger health by reason of polluting the air, and this does not endanger health by reason of polluting the air at all,"
motor vehicles account for only about 6 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, even aggressive federal regulation would not be great enough to make a difference
“That assumes everything else is going to remain constant, though, right? It assumes there isn’t going to be a greater contribution of greenhouse gases from economic development in China and other places that’s going to displace whatever marginal benefit you get here.”
“Congress has not authorized it to embark on this regulatory endeavor.”
[T]he federal government should not be forced "to embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain" global issue of greenhouse gas emissions. "Now is not the time to exercise such authority."
::
So global warming has reached the supreme court. I'm not sure where this case is at this point. there was a lot of reporting on it about 1 week ago, and I haven't heard much since then. The stakes may or may not be that big for the larger issue of energy. I think the best to hope for is that the supreme court orders the EPA to reconsider their policy--not much of a threat, but these legal precedents have a way of becoming influential, no?
What's with the China/rest of the world argument? Why would that ever be an argument? It's as if he's ignoring one simple fact: if it can work in america, it can work anywhere, just like democracy or free markets. Ok bad examples, but you get the idea--we play some kind of alleged leadership role in the world. It's not that the rest of the world will obediently fall in to step. But if it makes money in america, a lot of money, everyone will notice. The new energy project, some say, can make a lot of money. I think it could potentially create a bigger economic impact than the internet (or internal combustion? steam power? ceramics?).
So what's the problem? If it's going to be such a good thing and make all kinds of money, why aren't people just striking ahead. Well, some are. But the thing is they don't really have to right now. "It's" not really a problem right now. Many businesses are dipping their toes in mostly due to the buzz surrounding greater energy efficiency. The argument here seems to be whether or not dipping our toes is adequate, or if instead we need to clamp down with some federal regulations (mind you it's still not really "diving in" because this case is only about car emissions. I'm not even sure if this includes truck and bus, and I know it doesn't include factories).
So let's not dally with whether or not we should do anything because 'what's it going to matter anyways no one else is going to do anything.' We should do something, of course. Scalia is right by framing the argument on imminence, but why does he pitter patter about stratosphere versus atmosphere? The issue of imminent doom is an interesting one in this case. The case for invading Iraq also hinged on imminence--sadaam posed an immediate threat according to our intelligence. But climate change is not the same as WMD's. I think by the time global warming is an imminent threat, there will be nothing we can do about it. Perhaps there is nothing we can do now, but I still think we should try.
posted by j0eb0t-xj9 at 8:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home