This is my disclaimer. Semi-political rant ahead. It is your choice to continue.
So I came back from working on a paper and attending an honors meeting last night. I opened the door. To my surprise, there were several people in there with my roommate, enthusiastically discussing something. I walked in. They paused. And then, jumping for joy, they announced that the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in automobiles under the statutes of the Clean Air Act. For a moment, I jumped for joy with them. Then I was curious.
"Wait... so you're telling me that the EPA didn't want to acknowledge that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant? Isn't that the point of the Clean Air Act?" I was puzzled, as the people gathered in the room were all pre-law members, meaning they had a better idea than I about the details of these kinds of things.
My roommate: "Well, it was meant to reduce smog and stuff."
Me: "Doesn't carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses help create 'smog and stuff'?"
My roommate: "Well, there were a lot of automakers that were claiming that there was no conclusive proof that carbon dioxide was damaging the environment, plus the Bush administration said that the EPA didn't have to regulate carbon dioxide in vehicle emissions."
Me:"Oh."
So I did a little research on the technical definitions of what we were discussing. Here we go:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "smog" is defined as: Fog intensified by smoke.
I then realized that I would have to look up the "technical" definition of smoke: The visible volatile product given off by burning or smoldering substances.
I'm pretty sure cars emit this. Yeah. Pretty sure.
So I wanted to continue jumping for joy with my friends, but honestly, it frightened me to consider that the Bush administration wasn't enforcing the EPA to regulate CO2 as part of the Clean Air Act (uhm... CO2 doesn't really make the air that clean...) and then even more frightened when I realized that the court had officially ruled: "the EPA now has to either regulate vehicle emissions for carbon dioxide, or provide a 'reasoned explanation' why it believes CO2 is not contributing to global warming." (If you want to check out the rest of the article I'm citing click here).
This basically means that if the EPA comes up with a "reasonable explanation" as to how CO2 isn't contributing towards global warming, then, well... they don't have to regulate it. This sort of angers me, considering this act was passed so long ago and isn't really being followed at all.
There has been some debate about this that I've been reviewing, and some people claim that this ruling at least means that states can sue the EPA if they aren't regulating CO2 emissions (as long as the state proves that CO2 emissions are harmful to the environment and the EPA can't explain their way out) because the court is officially saying the EPA has the power to regulate it. I'm not very privy with law, so I'll assume this is correct. If anyone knows any differently, please do comment. Or just comment. I want to know what others think.
On another note, this case did help along another case that has been pending since 1993 regarding the regulation of coal power plants and the emissions they give off. The Supreme Court ruled that the Duke power plant has to start putting in pollution control equipment on their plant. "The enforcement program is aimed at reducing power plant emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide that contribute to smog and acid rain. Sulfur dioxide is the leading cause of acid rain." So I guess that's good. ( Here's the rest of the story if you're interested).
Anyways, it's been a long day. Till next time....
Peace.