The Supreme Court is in the midst of one of the hottest environmental debates now ongoing -- and sadly, it's only going to get hotter.
Twelve states and two cities are suing the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to enforce the Clean Air Act and related laws. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
There is a need to compel the Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the dozen states, American cities and the world. Given that global warming and highercarbon dioxide levels are a proven threat, the Court must stop the EPA's indifference to carbon emissions before global warming creates a disastrous future.
Typically, the EPA reflects an administration's environmental proposals -- or lack thereof. That, in turn, establishes industry energy policies. Under the Clinton administration, the EPA followed the consensus of most scientists, which held that carbon dioxide from industrial pollution was creating an unnatural rise in the world's temperature -- what's generally known as "global warming."
But that has changed. The states and cities are arguing that the president must call on the EPA to limit carbon dioxide emissions. But the current administration doesn't agree and instead has taken a much different and more damaging approach to the situation.
First, the administration is arguing against regulating carbon emissions. According to President Bush actually doing anything about global warming, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would hurt the economy. But the economy will be hurt a lot more if Earth's temperatures continue to rise. Global warming will cause stronger and more damaging storms, greater weather damage and wildly fluctuating temperatures. This in turn will reduce oil production and drive up the cost of energy for heating and cooling. For instance, according to the Association of British Insurers, a trade association representing around 400 companies, worldwide storm damage caused by global warming could rise as much as two-thirds by 2080, causing annual losses up to $27 billion in current dollars. Despite the administration's insistence that America break its dependence on fossil fuels, it continues to ignore the threat from increased carbon emissions.
Second, the administration's only "solution" to greenhouse emissions is voluntary restrictions. That's not a solution -- that's passing the buck to private corporations. Even while claiming support for the EPA, the administration has consistently demonstrated that it is unwilling to put sufficient effort or funding into any environmental effort.
For example, while saying that it is focusing on new technologies to reduce carbon emissions the same administration "accidentally" laid off 32 employees from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in early 2006. The laboratory then rehired them right before Bush's visit to the lab, according to the Associated Press. For that matter, only very recently has the administration even acknowledged that global warming exists.
Fortunately, despite current administration indifference many companies are turning on their own toward environmentally friendly policies, such as "green" home building and mixed fuel technologies. However, voluntary efforts clearly are not enough. A mandatory EPA restriction from a Supreme Court ruling would send a much stronger message to companies about the seriousness of America's intention to reduce carbon emissions. A 50 percent or more reduction in current carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 is needed in order to stop carbon concentrations from rising, according to a report from the Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Lab.
Without mandated EPA intervention, major polluters are not moving in the right direction. In a report released last week, the EPA withheld the fact that model cars and trucks in 2004 were about 6 percent less energy efficient than the average new vehicle sold in the late 1980s. If the Supreme Court rules against the EPA the administration will be compelled to regulate emissions for both automotive and other pollutants that are currently doing only a haphazard job cutting down on carbon dioxide.
The Supreme Court needs to ensure that the administration and the EPA will recognize and regulate the problem of carbon dioxide emissions. While Bush recently tried to water down his anti-environmentalism by planning to create the world's largest marine sanctuary, it will take more than one preserve to reverse the current ecological damage from carbon dioxide. The Supreme Court and Congress need to ensure that the American people will not sweat in the heat of an increasingly hot climate -- it's time to turn up the heat and make the EPA and the administration sweat instead.
Adam Silverberg is a Cavalier Daily columnist. He can be reached at asilverberg@cavalierdaily.com.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_greenhouse_gases
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-21-bush-energy_x.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/29/business/carbon.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/business/28fuel.html?ex=1280203200&en=da4fa7c9c773562b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062600399.html?nav=rss_business
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/tdh0603.asp
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/media/documents/latimes_warming.pdf
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
