An important case involving global warming will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today. It is Massachusetts v. EPA. Thirteen enviornmental groups, along with twelve states, three cities and American Somoa, have sued the Enviornmental Protection Agency, claiming it should be controlling the output of greenhouse gases in this country.
The EPA claims it does not have the authority to do so, and it is backed by 10 states [including Texas], four vehicle trade associations, and two coalitions of power companies.
The case is not concerning whether greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming or not. Even Bush admits that it does, although he refuses to do anything about it. No, this case regards the definition of a pollutant.
Enviornmental groups claim that the greenhouse gases being pumped into our air are pollutants that are destroying our enviornment. The EPA claims that since greenhouse gases occur naturally in the enviornment to some extent, they do not fit the definition of a pollutant.
The Clean Air Act mandates that the EPA control pollutants. If the greenhouse gases are pollutants, then the EPA must take action to control their production. If they are not pollutants, then the EPA doesn't have the authority to control their production. That is the crux of the whole matter.
The Supreme Court is expected to render its decision by the middle of next year. I hope the court will decide in favor of protecting our enviornment. How can the production of gases that harm the enviornment not be considered pollution?
No comments:
Post a Comment
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.