11.30.2006
Supreme Court Takes Up Global Warming Case (NYTimes.com)
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 29, 2006
Filed at 12:04 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court stepped gingerly into the national debate over global warming on Wednesday, asking how much harm would occur if the Environmental Protection Agency continues its refusal to regulate greenhouse gases from new vehicles.
In the first case about global warming to reach the high court, a lawyer for 12 states and 13 environmental groups pressed the justices to make the government act, saying the country faces grave environmental harm.
Inaction is like lighting ''a fuse on a bomb,'' said James Milkey, an assistant attorney general for the state of Massachusetts.
Opening up an hour of arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, ''When is the predicted cataclysm?''
It's not cataclysmic, but rather ''ongoing harm,'' Milkey replied.
Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, representing the Bush administration, cautioned justices that EPA regulation could have a significant economic impact on the United States since 85 percent of the U.S. economy is tied to sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Garre also argued that EPA was right not to act given ''the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change.''
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Published: November 29, 2006
Filed at 12:04 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court stepped gingerly into the national debate over global warming on Wednesday, asking how much harm would occur if the Environmental Protection Agency continues its refusal to regulate greenhouse gases from new vehicles.
In the first case about global warming to reach the high court, a lawyer for 12 states and 13 environmental groups pressed the justices to make the government act, saying the country faces grave environmental harm.
Inaction is like lighting ''a fuse on a bomb,'' said James Milkey, an assistant attorney general for the state of Massachusetts.
Opening up an hour of arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, ''When is the predicted cataclysm?''
It's not cataclysmic, but rather ''ongoing harm,'' Milkey replied.
Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, representing the Bush administration, cautioned justices that EPA regulation could have a significant economic impact on the United States since 85 percent of the U.S. economy is tied to sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Garre also argued that EPA was right not to act given ''the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change.''
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Labels: Climate Change, New York Times, SCOTUS
¶ 08:05
