Supreme Court Decision Sets Stage for Tighter Regulation of Tailpipe Emissions
Date posted: 04-03-2007


WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a ruling that could cause further angst in Detroit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas tailpipe emissions.

The 5-4 decision is widely seen as a potential blow to the Motor City, where beleaguered U.S. automakers are heavily dependent on selling gas-guzzling SUVs and pickups.

Deciding that such emissions qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the high court said the EPA needs to provide a concrete reason to support its previous decision not to regulate greenhouse emissions. Any new rules about tailpipe emissions are likely to be years away. Still, industry observers say regulators are likely to tighten fuel-economy standards on cars and trucks sold in the U.S. in response to the court's decision.

In the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the EPA gave no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Many scientific studies have found a link between greenhouse gases and global warming.

The EPA said it is reviewing the decision to "determine the appropriate course of action."

 

Global Warming DOES NOT EXIST!!!!

 

I'd like to know what planet you are living on.

 

You might need to talk with the Scientists that have made this statement a long time ago.

 

What
I like the fact that this should increase fuel economy standards!!

 

You might need to talk with the scientists that say it does not. Hey, anybody wanna buy some carbon credits.
Did you know that the earth has warmed up .7 of a degree in 100yrs. Also, in the late 70's there were articles in major magazines that spoke of this issue, in the same exact context, but the concern then was global cooling (kinda ruins the scientists statements a long time ago, since the global cooling was backed by "scientists" too).
I am guessing your opinions are based Al Gore's movie. Buy the way, Gore spends more a month than I do in a year for his housing bills. So does John Edwards. If someone wants to tell me that I need to do my part, based on limited scientific research and a movie Michael Moore would be proud of, then does not do their part, they would be a hipocrit (Mr. Gore? Mr. Edwards?) I have done my research. There is no concrete proof, only consensus and a need on some politicians to create fear (for political gain maybe?).

For reference on the Global Cooling, here is an article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

Boy am I gonna get some hate mail.

 

I have not seen the Al Gore movie thanks!! You can check out this site as well U.S. EPA. To think that what we do as a civilization doesn't have an effect on the environment is insane.

 

Nope never liked the man, why would I want to watch a movie about him?
For years this has been one of the reasons for the USA to send people up in space so future generations could live there, among other reasons of course.
But to make a statement the way you have......................
You have Balls.
Or is it Guts?

 

Nothing like handing the opposition the ammo to fight the battle. Did you bother to read the article yourself?

 

Al Gores movie, An Inconvienent Truth, is actually a Convienent Lie in my opinion. I have talked to so many people that have seen it and their first reponse is how scared they are now. Al's mission acomplished.
I am just saying, don't just listen, do a little research on your own. I believe we can have a minor affect on mother nature, but there is no way we can controll mother nature. No matter what we do, mother nature will still be in charge of the weather and global warming or cooling.