June 26, 2006

Globaloney Slicers

Hatched by Dafydd

Although it may seem at first as if the Supreme Court is going to substitute itself for the scientific method in deciding whether anthropogenic global climate change is actually real, it's nowhere near that dire; in fact, this case is a chance for the Court to strike a blow for sanity by clarifying what only it can clarify: whether the executive has a legal duty to solve problems as determined by community leaders -- or just legal jurisdictions and prohibitions set by the Constitution. (Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120.)

Spurred by states in a pollution battle with the Bush administration, the court said it would decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency is required under the federal clean air law to treat carbon dioxide from automobiles as a pollutant harmful to health.

The decision could determine how the nation addresses global warming.

Curiously, the AP article never gets around to mentioning exactly what CO2 -- carbon dioxide -- actually is. Besides being emitted from smokestacks and auto exhaust pipes, it is also emitted every time an air-breathing animal exhales.

Evidently, what the states argue is that we should declare the natural exhalation from snakes, rats, monkeys, and human beings -- and even lawyers employed by the plaintiffs -- as a "pollutant" when it's inhaled by a car or a factory, and that the EPA must perforce regulate -- that is, ban -- any releases over a certain amount.

This would indeed be asking the Court to brush science aside and substitute decree. Can this actually be done? Let's not hold our breath.

The EPA said in a statement that the agency "is confident in its decision" not to regulate the chemical under the federal Clean Air Act and plans to argue its case vigorously before the high court.

Recently, Bush told reporters he views global warming as a serious problem and has "a plan to be able to deal with greenhouse gases" short of regulating their use. It includes developing new technologies for cleaner burning coal, using alternative motor fuels such as ethanol as substitutes for gasoline and expanding nuclear power to produce electricity. [All sensible policies even without taking global warming into account. -- the Mgt.]

Critics argue that carbon emissions have continued to increase - though the rate of increase has declined - and only regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will stem the amount going into the atmosphere.

President Bush has a workable plan: the only way to reduce the use of carbon-based fuel is to find an alternative that uses less carbon. (This is not a trick question.)

The states' plan, contrariwise, is to shake a fist and shout at every industry in the United States, confident this will cause emissions to disappear while the economy magically remains constant. By the way, which states in particular do you think might have been involved in this lawsuit?

  • California (9%)
  • Connecticut (10%)
  • Illinois (11%)
  • Maine (9%)
  • Massachusetts (25%)
  • New Jersey (7%)
  • New Mexico (-1% * )
  • New York (19%)
  • Oregon (4%)
  • Rhode Island (21%)
  • Vermont (20%)
  • Washington (7%)

(The number in parentheses is Kerry's margin of victory over Bush in each of these plaintiff-states. * New Mexico actually went for Bush by 1 point; but the governor of New Mexico is former Clinton Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson... and guess who made the decision for New Mexico to join the lawsuit?)

In addition, several cities joined up, including Baltimore, New York City and Washington D.C. (all Democrat, all the time), as well as America Samoa (huh?)

Besides the governmental bodies, other plaintiffs included the Union of Concerned Scientists (they of the "doomsday clock," which is always set closer to midnight whenever a Republican is elected), Greenpeace (who are in the business of sabotaging our military), and Friends of the Earth (say, I wonder where they stand on the political spectrum!)

A more motley looking crew I don't think we'll ever find. Every wild-eyed lefty in America would crawl on his hands and knees though boiling pitch to be a part of the lawsuit to force President Bush to ban carbon dioxide.

The states involved, which together account for more than a third of the car market, say the Clean Air Act makes clear carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated if it poses a danger to public health and welfare. They argue it does so by causing a warming of the earth.

Reckon they didn't get the memo about calling it "global climate change," not "global warming," so even when the weather is unseasonably cold they can still cite that as evidence.

I haven't reviewed the Act itself; but the EPA has a "Plain English Guide To The Clean Air Act." Under the heading "The Common Air Pollutants (Criteria Air Pollutants)," I find the following air pollutants listed:

  • Ozone
  • VOCs (volatile organic compounds), such as "benzene, toluene, methylene chloride and methyl chloroform"
  • Nitrogen Dioxide
  • Carbon Monoxide
  • Particulate Matter (dust, smoke, soot)
  • Sulfur Dioxide
  • Lead

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see carbon dioxide on that list -- and no, you cannot snip the first word off carbon monoxide and combine it with the second word of nitrogen dioxide. In fact, every pollutant on this list except ozone is a polluting additive not normally found in air, something that would be virtually undetectable in the air of A.D. 1000, except perhaps in special areas (such as around a lead mine or in the bubbling cauldrons of Yellowstone National Park).

But... carbon dioxide? That has always been a huge and natural part of our atmosphere. Plants "breathe" it in order to live. Plants actually grow better in a high CO2 environment than in the current atmosphere -- which is not true of any of the actual pollutants listed above.

To call this "air pollution" is to strain the definition to the breaking point. It's ludicrous. Maybe it should be regulated; I don't think so, but let's suppose it should be. Then get Congress to regulate it!

Get them to pass the Excess Exhalation Act of 2006... don't try to shoehorn carbon dioxide into a regulatory scheme that long predates the globaloney panic by calling CO2 "pollution," as if it were some alien matter that somehow snuck into our pristine breathing matter. (If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?)

But more to the point, there is no general legal duty for the executive (or Congress) to solve problems. The Court cannot tell the president that he is obliged to force oil companies to drill for more oil, or that he must resolve the immigration question, or that he has to shift U.S. troops into Jordan in order to guard against a sneak attack from Syria.

Occasionally, the courts will order the executive to act; but that is generally only as a remedy for past misdeeds... such as Brown v. Board of Education, where the executive was ordered to desegregate the schools. The Constitution is silent about the exact level of carbon dioxide that is allowed to be in the earth's atmosphere.

If the Court held that states could sue to force the president to start regulating carbon dioxide, even in the absence of any legal mandate to do so -- and clearly Congress never imagined that what it called "air pollution" would be extended to include exhalation -- just because the plaintiff-states think that would be a better policy, then that would spell the end of our form of government: every state, city, and NGO would sue in federal court to force the White House or Congress to enact specific pieces of legislation that the plaintiffs prefer. That's what we have a Congress for, for heaven's sake: to make such decisions in a democratic manner.

Although it's a logical end-point for a Court that is increasingly narcissistic, I still have confidence that, even if four justices thought this case should be heard (a divided circus-court narrowly held for the administration), the full Court will come down resoundingly against the states in their arrogant lawsuit... and by more than 5-4, too. I'm guessing that both Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice David Souter will rule for the president, and maybe even Justice John Paul Stevens (and of course Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts). I am absolutely convinced this writ of cert is a dead cert.

So I look forward to the Court clarifying that no, neither the states nor Congress can simply dictate to the president how he will do his job. The executive is a co-equal branch of government... not Vermont's errand boy.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 26, 2006, at the time of 11:58 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/903

Comments

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Law, fact truth, due process....all of these are alien ideas to lefties.
Leaking national security secrets? No big deal, if it is against the nation and a conservative President.
The law does not include CO2 as a pollutant? (forget the fact that it is not a pollutant)
Well, let us just go to court for the judges to find CO2 int he penumbra of the Constitution.
The left is increasingly waging war on America.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 6:20 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

The left is also lame on Science, C02 is necessary for Life and plants seem to have evolved to require or at least thrive much better on higher levels in the atmosphere than now exists.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 7:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

The lefties always turn to unelected courts to do their dirty work. Pathetic.

And what if the court finds that the clean air act requires action on carbon dioxide? Can't the congress then pass a law, that the president signs, specifically banning carbon dioxide from regulation under the clean air act? And wouldn't that be entirely constitutional? If so, then what the hell is the point of this exercise?

By the by, why are the Democrats so consistently opposed to...well democracy? They demean our efforts to install consensual government in Iraq, they use the unelected courts to get their way, they whine incessantly when they LOSE an election, they fawn over unelected depots like Castro and Chavez, they filibuster in the Senate over every issue. It is "Freedom for me, but not for thee". But it is the Republicans that are painted as greedy wannabe dictators.

I just don't get it.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 10:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Big D:

By the by, why are the Democrats so consistently opposed to...well democracy?

You know, I hadn't thought about it that way, but you make a good point. I think I'll blog about it.

If you blog it, would you post the link here, so I can include it when I get around to doing mine? It'll be some time from now.

We're going to be gone for about a week in August, and I'm preparing a number of "timeless" posts (that aren't linked to specific current events) to run while we're out of town. We'll have a laptop with us, but I'd rather only have to post one post a day while on holiday than try to cram in three or four!

This would be a good one. Thanks for the idea, and remember to let me know in some comments thread if you blog it.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 1:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Speaking of August, are you going to Worldcon in Anaheim?
If I can scalp up some cheap airfare, I am going.
I have not met most of my favorite writers, and Vernor Vinge is scheduled to be there. Maybe even Rudy Rucker?
Of course if you are going to be there, that would settle that.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 4:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

monkyboy, what is remarkable is that lefties would think a tree blowing over in a storm is remarkable.
being properly skeptical of the religion of mcgw helps one appreciate the environment and to look for effective things to do.
Regulating CO2 without support of law by judicial fiat only assures that a lot of money will be wasted that could otherwise go to clean up stuff that would make a difference.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 4:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Dafydd,

I'm a certified non-blogger, and only post (mostly) here.

Take the topic and run with it. I'm sure you will do it justice.

Also - enjoy your vacation.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 5:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Hunter:

Speaking of August, are you going to Worldcon in Anaheim?

Yes, Sachi and I will both be there. I won't be on any panels, because the LA SMOFs and I mix like caviar and shampoo. But we'll be wandering about.

Keep the giraffe burning!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 8:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

I have nothing to add -- great post!

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 8:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Dafydd,

With all due respect, all of the items listed are 'naturally' found in the atmosphere except metallic lead. Even organic lead compounds are found in the atmosphere by normal chemical reactions. Lead is a fairly common component of crustal rock.

Carbon monoxide is produced by all respiring multicellular living things and is a normal product of combustion.

Volatile organic hydrocarbons are found wherever plants live and are typical components of natural gas, which are expelled by flatulent animals, seeps into the oceans from rifts, and are vented with each volcanic eruption.

Nitrogen oxides, of which nitrogen dioxide is one form, are produced by photochemical reactions by solar UV and by atmospheric static electric discharges. Nitric oxide is produced by vascular endothelial cells as a blood flow regulator, some of which gets exhaled.

Particulates like dust get picked up by winds over 15mph as well as being injected into the atmosphere at supersonic speeds during eruptions.

Soot is produced by the ton during forest fires, whether caused by lightning, meteor strikes, or volcanic eruptions. Smoke, btw, is a mixture of soot and volatilized pyrolytic compounds.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 11:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

CDQuarles:

With all due respect, all of the items listed are 'naturally' found in the atmosphere except metallic lead.

Yes, but not in the quantities we're talking about here; they're minor components prior to industrialization... industrial pollution is not a figment of our imagination. But carbon dioxide, contrariwise, has very often been found naturally in the atmosphere at levels greater than we see right now.

Nor is there any correlation between marginally higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the sort of respiratory and other illnesses associated with actual pollutants -- often theorized, but I don't recall any studies that actually found it.

(The increase in juvenile asthma is more likely due to (a) increased awareness of its existence, (b) diet, (c) lack of exercise, and (d) the realization on the part of children that they can get out of gym class by faking an asthma attack.)

Patterico notwithstanding, there really is such a thing as reading too literally, CDQ...!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2006 2:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Dafydd,

Yes, but not in the quantities we're talking about here; they're minor components prior to industrialization... industrial pollution is not a figment of our imagination. But carbon dioxide, contrariwise, has very often been found naturally in the atmosphere at levels greater than we see right now.
Actually, you don't know that, and they are minor constituents now. It is the fact that these chemicals were, are, and will be minor constituents of the atmosphere (any chemical, "natural" or otherwise, found in ppm, ppb, or ppt amounts are by definition minor constituents) that calling them pollutants so irks me. I greatly dislike the conflation of emissions with pollution. The principles of toxicology still apply (dose & route of administration).

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 29, 2006 11:51 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved