Will the EPA finally get some teeth?

First of all, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the EPA can finally grow some teeth - ie. that it can regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases (the gases which trap heat inside of our atmosphere). This is huge. The issue at stake was whether such gases constitute "pollutants" and fall under the jurisdiction of the "Clean Air Act." The Bush Administration has long held that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and therefore is not subject to EPA regulation. This case (entitled Mass. vs. the EPA) arose when twelve states, including Wesleyan's home state of Connecticut, sued the EPA for not regulating greenhouse gases. Now that the Supreme Court has sided with the states, the EPA is required (or, free) to pursue CO2 regulation. In fact, if it does not, it may be subject to legal action. As can be expected, the vote was close - 5-4, with the more conservative judges contesting the fact that such a coalition of states and environmentalist groups should have been allowed to stand as plantiffs in the first place. Justice Scalia in particular has been attempting to raise the standing in environmental cases such as these. This court decision, as reported by the NY Times, is likely to be the most important environmental decision the court has made in recent years, and it will shape the legal and environmental landscape for year and years to come. It is of interest to note that the debate over this case concerned the viability of multi-state standing in court, not the viability of CO2 as a pollutant. In fact, all of the justices agreed that CO2 fit the definition of a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that Global Warming is the result of anthropogenic activities. The justices were particularly swayed by evidence about the impacts of automobiles on CO2 emissions.



On the same page there is a discussion board with the question, "Do rich countries have an obligation to help poorer countries bear the cost of global warming?"

Implicit in this question is the hypothesis (scientifically founded) that global warming will disproportionately affect the global south and Africa. There are a few countries which may benefit - including Russia. Just something to mull over.

Additionally, here was a pertinent article on the front page of the New York Times this morning which I suggest you all check out. It is entitled, "No Longer Waiting for Rain, an Arid West Takes Action." Of course, much of the action mentioned is court action, Montana is suing Wyoming in the US Supreme Court over water rights. We tend to forget that supporting large populations in the West creates huge water demands. Water demands which can no longer be met by just the Colorado River. Not that this should be news to anyone - the Colorado River has been shrinking in size decade by decade - it used to flow almost all the way down to Mexico. Seven states rely on water from the Colorado River - which means relying on water from yearly snow melt. However, global warming (severe drought is forcasted for the West) and rapidly expanding populations may conspire to complicate the picture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/us/04drought.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


Anyways, that's all your getting out of me today - buts its an exciting time to be following energy concerns. I hear about my grant in the next few days, so everyone wish me luck....

Emily