We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

Supreme Court Decides Against Bush Administration

by Florian Roetzer Wednesday, Apr. 11, 2007 at 8:11 AM
mbatko@lycos.com

Even if a refduction of greenhouse gases cannot reverse the climate warming, a national reduction would still delay this, irrespective of what happens in other countries.

SUPREME COURT DECIDES AGAINST BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND CAR FIRMS

The reasons for the Bush administration’s refusal to set upper limits for the car emissions of greenhouse gases are invalidated in an important decision

By Florian Roetzer

[This article published in the German-English cyber journal Telepolis, 4/3/2007 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web, http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/25/25000/1.html.]




The Bush administration closely entwined with the energy- and oil sector waged a war on account of energy policy and consistently refuses obligations to reduce greenhouse gases. With astounding impudence, the Bush administration exerts pressure on scientists [1], revised reports on climate change [“Muzzle for US Scientists” (2)], spared corporations in favor of the economy and prevented climate warming from becoming a political theme for as long as possible. After climate policy was pushed to the sidelines, Bush was recently outed in an open letter [3] as a defender of climate protection that he allegedly has taken very seriously since the beginning of his term in office.

Despite all protestations of being concerned about protecting the atmosphere, the Environmental Protection Agency [4} and the White House refused upper limits for the emission of greenhouse gases by cars prescribed in the Clean Air Act [5], the 1970 law to keep the air clean. The Environmental Protection Agency hardly tried to implement the demands formulated in the law and affirmed in a GAO report [6] from June 2006.

Since the Bush administration in 2001 refused to limit the omission of greenhouse gases by cars to the advantage of the auto industry, 12 states led by California and 13 environmental organizations sued the government since the law prescribes regulating all substances that pollute the air and present risks for public health and well-being. With a thin majority of five to four, the Supreme Court has now invalidated the reasons of the Bush administration for not setting any ceiling for the pollution emissions of new cars. The Bush administration encouraged a consortium of auto companies (GM, Ford, BMW, VW, Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota and several others) to reject any regulation in times of increasing sales of gas-guzzling SUVs.

For a long while, these demands were resisted with the argument the Environmental Protection Agency did not have authority to set upper limits for emissions of greenhouse gases. Alleged scientific reasons were cited. Thus the Department of Justice declared [7] the claimants did not have to prove car exhaust fumes from new vehicles in the US actually contribute and that this pollution is not caused “by greenhouse gases from other sources in the US, greenhouse gases from vehicles or other sources outside the US or from very different factors.” Cars in the US emit 315 million tons of carbon dioxide. All vehicles in the US have a 7 percent share in the global emission of CO2, largely from vehicles. One argument of auto firms was that a reduction of CO2 emissions for new vehicles would not have any “measurable” effect on climate warming. The Supreme Court ruling will cost the corporations billions of dollars. Vehicles must be re-equipped. As a result, corporations will bring smaller cars on the market and earn less profit.

According to the Supreme Court decision, the environmental authority can regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars as required by the Clean Air Act since this is “air pollution” in the sense of the law. The court also said the EPA need not do this if the agency presents an adequate explanation that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate warming. Otherwise the court reject rejected the list of reasons offered by the White House why no regulation could be introduced. The president, the defendants claimed, could not fix any upper limits because “this would hinder him from negotiating reduction of greenhouse gases with important developing countries.” The president, as we read in the majority opinion, has great authority in foreign policy and cannot hinder implementing domestic laws. In addition, the US government argued a regulation would impede scientific research and technical innovation.

Furthermore, the decision [8] held that well-documented global warming is occurring with a significant increase in greenhouse gases. Respected scientists see a connection between these two facts. The consequences of global warming are “serious and well-known” and represent a global and local threat. Even if a reduction of greenhouse gases cannot reverse the climate warming, a national reduction would still delay this warming, irrespective of what happens in other countries.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy