Log In | Register
JASON COLEMAN
A structural engineer with a love for tech, politics, science, and culture.
Articles Posted: 8; Links Seeded: 1601
Member Since: 1/2006
Member Since: 1/2006
6 Votes
1 Comment
Article Source: seedmagazine.comadvertisement
A case scheduled to be argued in front of the nation's highest court could change the course of climate change policy.
The future of carbon dioxide regulation is up in the air, and it's not up to scientists or even industry to determine what lies ahead. Instead, that duty falls to experts in jurisprudence, not climatology.
Next summer, the Supreme Court will hear its first major global warming case: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case, which asks whether the federal government should have to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, will bring the science of climate change from the lab bench to the judicial bench—giving nine justices the chance to reshape the dialogue on global warming.
Published to:
- Jason Coleman's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
 | Blair's and Schwarzenegger's 'global warming pact' | CNN | Mon Jul 31 | 0 |
| U.K., California to strike global warming deal | USA Today | Wed Aug 2 | 0 |
- Public Discussion (1)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
1.5
{"commentId":233910,"authorDomain":"Entelechy"}
I'm not sure why the author of this article thinks the Court is going to rule on the science of global warming. It seems that doing so is unecessary to demonstrate that Massachusets lacks standing. Obviously, regardless of whether failure to regulate CO2 actually harms Massachusets, the State can certainly enact its own regulations. Therefore, the State lacks standing. Even if the plaintiffs get past that hurdle, they still have to demonstrate that the Clean Air Act "implies" CO2 regulation despite not specifically saying anything about it. Massachusets will lose this case, regardless of the science.
{"commentId":233910,"threadId":"34805","contentId":"311132","authorDomain":"Entelechy"}
- 1 vote
#1 - Thu Aug 3, 2006 12:30 PM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"34805","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
