“Court rules on U.S. greenhouse gas regulation The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants’ under the federal Clean Air Act and that the U.S. government has the authority to regulate them. Twelve states and several non-profit organizations had sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after EPA ruled in 2003 that it lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. The Court, in its 5-4 ruling, objected to EPA’s “laundry list of reasons not to regulate” greenhouse gases and said that EPA “offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.” EPA was ordered to revisit its decision on regulating greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. The full Court opinion on Massachusetts vs. EPA is available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf.”

-cvj

“… among a group of the nation’s leading climatologists who have signed an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court in support of the 11 states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts, that have sued the EPA for failing to regulate greenhouse gases, primarily the high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere … In late June, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case this fall.”

Anyone following the case?

I very much agree with you. And so do many people who are advocating for energy alternatives. It is indeed the case that one of the best alternative energy resources is the maximize the energy that you don’t use. I’m amazed by how much energy my own house leaks during both Summer and Winter, for example. When I lived on the East coast, in Princeton and later in Lexington, I was always appalled by how much the heat I used to keep warm was pouring out through the windows, walls and doors. And yes, it is true that the greater part of our energy consumption in the USA is not for transport.

Candace,

Yes, this is why the world is watching, Everyone recalls how dramatically California turned around the air quality by stepping forward on the issue. This is one of the reasons I have the word “again” in the post’s title.

Best,

-cvj

Anyway that the lifestyle mentalities of Americans and Europeans are diametrically apart is legendary where American consumerism trumps the build-to-last philosophy of most European countries.

Arnold has taken a bold step. Let’s hope this is the beginning of many bold steps to come.

On the danger of sounding very German, I don’t even think the main issue are the cars. If the gas prize rises to European levels it might actually cause some people to over-think whether they really need a car suitable to transport the national baseball league in case they come for dinner. And I have seen some of these hybrid things which are kind of cool. So I have hope there will be a rethinking some time soon.

No, I actually think for most of the warmer part of the US the main problem is that the ‘houses’ are very badly isolated, if at all. Meaning, during the summer the air condition is constantly running, and during the winter the heating is permanently on. Worse, this also goes for most offices/public buildings and stores. For me it was shocking to see how people live here! A window has to CLOSE, frames should not be made of metal, outside doors should not have rims on all sides. And if you ask me, I’d also say a HOUSE has to be build of stone, not of wood. And don’t give me the earthquake argument, if the Japanese know how to do that, maybe ask them.

Another major issue which I’d say is typically American is the habit of producing things that have to be replaced very soon, the lack of quality. Start with appliances over household stuff, the shear amount of wrappings, but also look at streets/highways where the pavement constantly has to be fixed, houses and stores that are crashed down and rebuild frequently, all the things that are permanently broken, but hey, there’s always a customer service hotline. And yes, these permanent replacements waste energy.

Gee, I DO really sound German here

Best,

B.

PS: btw, did you see the latest Sciam-issue on the Future of Energy?

I’m pretty sure that there will always be a degree of uncertainty on this issue, but it seems safe to say that there is wide agreement that there is significant change to the climate brought about by our actions, and that those changes are not positive, taking everything into account.

-cvj

You mentioned economic uncertainty. But is the scientific uncertainty settled?

The Aug 22 issue of EOS (Are Scientists Underestimating Climate Change?) reports on “at least eight recent developments, largely based on observed changes, point to a higher probability of more serious impacts.”

-cvj