The Bush administration cannot be happy with a vote from the Supreme Court.
The nation's highest court by a 5-4 vote said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "has offered no reasoned explanation" for its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new cars and trucks that contribute to climate change.
Source: UPDATE 1-US court rules against Bush in global warming case | Bonds News | Reuters.com
the Bush administration has repeatedly shied away from utilizing the Environmental Protection Agency to maintain or clean up the environment. The court decision basically tells Bush that he has not been doing his job, and that it is now time for the executive branch to enforce the law that as the Constitution requires.
In sending the case back for further proceedings, Stevens said the high court did not decide which policy the EPA must follow. "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute," he wrote.
The Bush administration has consistently rejected capping greenhouse gas emissions as bad for business and U.S. workers.
Bush has recently been seen traveling the country with auto leaders that are suffering from severe setbacks in the auto industry. Additional EPA restrictions on auto emissions will not help that industry, however that industry has not been helping itself nor the environment for many decades.
The TSA and the Airline industry this week got into a big battle over airline safety. It would seem that a TSA inspector attempting to det...
2 comments:
These tougher emission standards will do nothing to fix the so called global warming problem in the world. It will do nothing to reduce the emissions on the millions of cars already on our nations road ways. But it will most definitely hurt the consumer when we can least afford it.
It really isn't so surprising that the still left leaning SC decided to rule in the favorite of economic destruction in this case, after all liberals never seem to fully understand how their decisions adversely affect the American people they have sworn to protect.
As a conservative myself, if I were to follow your logic and extend it slightly I suppose the people of the Gulf Coast would have really been in trouble following Hurricane Katrina if a liberal President had been in power to make decisions about how to let people suffer and die without any assistance.
They would have suffered more in that situation because a liberal would not have understood how adversely their decisions would impact the people of the Gulf Coast as opposed to President Bush, who by the same logic must have understood, but still did nothing.
As I see it global warming is first and foremost a result of the continued warming that the Earth has been going through as it comes out of the last ice age. It is being pushed along in the last two hundred years however by the industrial revolution.
It hasn't quite been 100 years since people could see the impact of coal and soot coating and covering everything in sight, but it did happen. The world looked for a cleaner and economically more efficient source of energy and found it in petroleum, natural gas and nuclear energy.
Now this 'cleaner' energy is not clean enough and it may not be the originating cause for global warming but it is adding fuel to the fire. For economic reasons first, security reasons second and just in case we can slow down global warming or stop the acceleration third, we must as a country and as a planet find a more efficient form of energy again. The truth is that only cowards and wimps would ignore this challenge presented to the human race. Our goal, our challenge is to advance or die out a slow death.
The Bush Administration has lost two key groups in its political base over this issue. First, it has lost hunters and naturalists that gravitate towards conservatives and by extension Republicans to protect their second amendment rights, which I'm all for. They can see the forest and wilderness be trampled left and right and know that there is a problem. (In addition to changing climates, the world is filling up with people, the US just reached 300 million people and will add 100 million people in the next 15-20 years.)
The other group is a Christian base. Christians are told in the bible to cherish and protect God's green earth. The bible says that God gave man the earth and everything on it for man's use, but he didn't give that gift according to the bible so that it could be squandered, wasted, or destroyed. Bush has ignored the environment and by extension ignored and aided and abetted in the laying waste to the Earth, a gift from God.
Bush might as well have spit in God's eye for all the damage he has done in not protecting God's gift for future generations.
Conservative economics point to the need to deal with this problem and find a more efficient source of energy. Conservative defense strategies point to a need to find a renewable homegrown form of energy as well. Conservative hunters, out doorsman and Christian Conservatives all have a direct and personal reason to take action as well.
Bush is not a conservative. He is not a capitalist. He has turned on all those groups and laid waste to their goals, principles and ideals. He is simply a spoiler and an ineffectual leader. He has not protected the constitution, he has allowed the American people to suffer and die in tragedy after tragedy and for all of those reasons he is not a patriot.
He needs to be shown the door and rather quickly. If conservatives want to have a voice anytime in the politics of the United States during the next 30 years, they need to stand up and impeach Bush now before he does more damage to our country, our people, our constitution, our planet and even to conservatives themselves.
Regardles, I thank you for your comments Jon.