The Supreme Court and Global Warming
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published November 28, 2006, 11:52 am in News, Economic Issues, Environmental Issues.
Something big is beginning today, even though many don't even realize it's happening. On November 29, 2006 the United States Supreme Court begins hearing a case involving global warming, the first time the Court has ever entered this particular fray. Don't expect a ruling by the end of the day, of course, but what the Supreme Court decides sometime next year could have major ramifications on the auto and energy industries of the United States.
Why would the Supreme Court be hearing a case on global warming in the first place? Well, it involves the EPA. In 1999, 12 states and environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate key greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. The EPA declined and said that it had no jurisdiction to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Again, why? Well, there are several factors at work here. First, the EPA has the agency and mission to regulate any emission that may potentially harm the public. This is a good thing. It's what keeps our planet from being completely destroyed by those evil corporations. Wait, is that a judgement? Oh well. The EPA is a good thing, I insist. Besides being the regulatory agency that keeps corporations at bay, it is also a vehicle of dissemination, explaining to the public the dangers and science of such things as climate change. According to the EPA's website, the goal of the organization is "to protect human health and the environment. Since 1970, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people." Praise God for that. Who knows what L.A. and Houston would be like if the EPA didn't exist.
What is a Pollutant, Anyway?
But greenhouse gases are inconclusive. Sure, there is something called greenhouse gases, and they help to warm our planet. Without this layer of our atmosphere, our world would be a lot cooler than it is now (~60 degrees, according to some scientists). But the number of greenhouse gases is increasing due to human factors and emission. The extra gases mean that extra heat is being trapped close to the earth's surface. This is what causes global warming in the first place. Because we release all of these gases, our world is warming up.
There is debate about this, though, as I mentioned in a previous column. The EPA, however, wants to have it both ways. And we can't forget that the EPA is a governmnet organization that is not wholly independent from the administration it is attached to. The people who run governmental environmental organizations are appointed, not elected.
The EPA has an entire website dedicated to climate change and global warming. They claim the following:
"For over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping 'greenhouse gases' to increase significantly in our atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse."
But they don't know how exactly it is changing or how much it is changing. And much of the EPA site claims that the current climate change could be cyclical, that there have been lots of climate changes in the Earth's history, and this one could be no different. For example, they quote a 2001 study:
"Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. The warming that has been estimated to have occurred in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somewhat greater than the observed warming.
So the EPA admits on the one hand that greenhouse gases are increasing due to human emissions, but then they equivocate and say that the cause and effect link isn't conclusive. I agree with them for the most part, but I don't understand why the appearance of cause and effect isn't enough to lead to regulations.
So the EPA's argument in this current case going before the Supreme Court is that they can't regulate carbon dioxide because there is no proof that it is a harmful pollutant. In fact, they claim that it's a naturally occuring substance that is necessary for life on this planet. I can see that argument easily. The EPA claims that it cannot regulate something that may or may not bebe harmful. What is at stake here is the definition of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. They need proof that it is harmful, and then they will take action. That makes sense. They're waiting for the evidence.
But Let's Maybe Ask People to Perhaps Regulate Themselves...
But there's more to it than that. The EPA and the Bush administration then claim that we should concentrate on voluntary efforts to limit carbon emissions. But why is that necessary? If there is no danger in carbon dioxide, why worry about it? Isn't saying that companies should voluntarily limit their emissions the same as admitting that there is a problem? So we have an issue of whether or not carbon dioxide is a pollutant alongside the issue of how it should be regulated if it is one. Seems like a strange argument to me. It's like saying that coffee may be bad for you, so you think about not drinking it. But there's no proof that it's bad for you. Then why stop drinking it? Geez, I think I have to stop to go get another cup...
But We Probably Wouldn't Regulate the Way You Want Us to, Anyway
Alright, I'm back. So the EPA then comes out and says that even if they did have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, they have some leeway about how to do it, and they probably would not regulate emissions from car exhaust or industry plants. Wait a minute? We're back on how to regulate it here? The Supreme Court just may well tell them how to regulate it. I wonder what they will do. Can the Supreme Court say that the EPA must put a limit of X amount on all car emissions? Won't that be a blast!
Ah, It Wouldn't Do Any Good, Anyway
Then the friends of the EPA in this case say that even if there is proof that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas pollutant, setting regulations for the U.S. won't do any good. Even though the U.S. produces a lot of emissions, in the world environment, they're still a pretty small lot. Curbing U.S. emissions isn't gonna do anything when Venuzuela, China, and India are still emitting like crazy. What we need, these people say, is an international regulation on greenhouse gases, because this is a world problem, not a problem solely for the U.S.
This point I agree with completely. Yes, we need some international regulations. But using that as a reason for why we shouldn't regulate our carbon dioxide emissions is bad policy. It's the "everybody else is doing it, why shouldn't I?" argument. I remember throwing a wrapper on the ground and my mom saying I have to pick it up and throw it in the trash. And I said, "Why? Everyone else is doing it. Does it make a difference if I pick up my piece?" It may not, but it's still our responsibility, isn't it?
The EPA's Argument Goes Something like This:
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, so we cannot regulate it.
If carbon dioxide is a pollutant, we want to have voluntary regulations and we won't put standards on cars.
If carbon dioxide is a pollutant, regulating it won't do any good becuase no other country is doing it.
And that's strange to me. Only the first one should matter, it seems. The others are byproducts, policy decisions that should be made by the regulatory agencies at the urging of Congress. The Supreme Court shouldn't even have to decide whether something is or is not a pollutant. The regulatory agcencies should be able to do that on their own. But when politics and money and power all get intertwined, things get messy, and no one wants to do anything. In fact, it seems like they will make any argument they can to keep U.S. industries going along just like they are.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 10 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment