Over the past year we have seen a growing body of public opinion critiquing varied aspects of what is now termed ‘...
With the Supreme Court ruling today on greenhouse gas emission regulations, readers have been asking us who were the parties opposing the ruling.
Not surprisingly, the list includes many third-party groups representing major auto manufacturers, heavy industry, oil and gas and electrical production. We thought it would be interesting to see where each of these organizations stood on the issues of environment and global warming. And interesting it was, for example, one of the opponents of new carbon emissions regulations is the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, yet their website states that, “members of the Alliance believe that it is prudent to reduce emissions, including carbon dioxide…”
The Supreme Court has ordered the federal government to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, states: “Despite acknowledging that global warming poses serious dangers to our environment and health, the Bush Administration has done little or nothing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. As a result of today’s landmark ruling, EPA can no longer hide behind the fiction that it lacks any regulatory authority to address the problem of global warming.”
The former U.S. vice-president told a Swedish audience: “If the crib is on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant.” He was joined by EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, who said it’s important people understand there’s more to climate change than a few degrees difference in temperature.