Richard Tafoya
Jun 26th, 2006, 09:57 AM
My DD:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/26/11380/6123
Remember that insane commercial (http://streams.cei.org/) from the global warming deniers? You know, the one that concluded with the tag line 'they call it pollution, we call it life'. Well it's just become clear to me why they ran the ad. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/washington/AP-Scotus-Greenhouse-Gases.html?hp&ex=1151380800&en=43ce6578058bddbf&ei=5094&partner=homepage) Billions of dollars are riding on the question of whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant or not.
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court's most important decisions on the environment. A dozen states, a number of cities and various environmental groups asked the court to take up the case after a divided lower court ruled against them.
They argue that the Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act because as the primary ''greenhouse'' gas causing a warming of the earth, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
The administration maintains that carbon dioxide -- unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to assure healthy air -- is not a pollutant under the federal clean air law, and that even if it were the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it.
It's interesting that the oil companies are split on global warming. Exxon Mobil is the primary denier of global warming, the worst of the worst. BP is actually very good, acknowledges the problem, and is willing to base its future business off of new energy sources.
I'm hoping more candidates and politicians get behind Henry Waxman's Safe Climate Act (http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/20/223032/126), but the ads that the global warming deniers are putting out suggest that it's going to be a hard fight. They are speaking an entirely different language, the language of technocratic legalese instead of normal English. It's terrible PR, unless your audience is the nine justices on the Supreme Court.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/26/11380/6123
Remember that insane commercial (http://streams.cei.org/) from the global warming deniers? You know, the one that concluded with the tag line 'they call it pollution, we call it life'. Well it's just become clear to me why they ran the ad. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/washington/AP-Scotus-Greenhouse-Gases.html?hp&ex=1151380800&en=43ce6578058bddbf&ei=5094&partner=homepage) Billions of dollars are riding on the question of whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant or not.
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court's most important decisions on the environment. A dozen states, a number of cities and various environmental groups asked the court to take up the case after a divided lower court ruled against them.
They argue that the Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act because as the primary ''greenhouse'' gas causing a warming of the earth, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
The administration maintains that carbon dioxide -- unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to assure healthy air -- is not a pollutant under the federal clean air law, and that even if it were the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it.
It's interesting that the oil companies are split on global warming. Exxon Mobil is the primary denier of global warming, the worst of the worst. BP is actually very good, acknowledges the problem, and is willing to base its future business off of new energy sources.
I'm hoping more candidates and politicians get behind Henry Waxman's Safe Climate Act (http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/20/223032/126), but the ads that the global warming deniers are putting out suggest that it's going to be a hard fight. They are speaking an entirely different language, the language of technocratic legalese instead of normal English. It's terrible PR, unless your audience is the nine justices on the Supreme Court.