----- Original Message ----- From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <critical.montages at gmail.com>
Perhaps you want to re-test your theory in light of facts.
Of the above, the only thing that may happen in the next couple of decades is US troop withdrawal, but even then it is far from clear that all of them will be leaving.
Socialized medicine in the USA and action on climate change that will make things better for the poor majority of the world, if anything, are as unlikely as a leftist president in the USA. -- Yoshie
=======================
Of course that first sentence could be said of you, given your last sentence:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus3apr03,0,6862154.story Greenhouse gases subject to regulation, Court rules By David G. Savage Times Staff Writer 7:28 PM PDT, April 2, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for a more aggressive attack by government on global warming, which could include the first national rules to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new cars, trucks and power plants.
In a 5-4 decision, the court rebuked the Bush administration and ruled that so-called greenhouse gases -- like carbon dioxide -- are air pollutants subject to federal regulation.
Bush and his aides, allied with automobile makers, argued that federal officials did not have the power to set mandatory limits on emissions of the gases.
A concerted federal effort to restrict greenhouse gases may not occur until the White House changes hands in January 2009. But at the least, the ruling knocked down a legal barrier that stood in the way of plans by several states to require reduced carbon emissions by new vehicles, starting in 2009.
The rise in the emissions of greenhouse gases has been linked by an array of scientists to a steady and potentially catastrophic rise in air temperatures. However, the administration maintained that the gases were not air pollutants as defined by the Clean Air Act.
That measure, passed in the 1970s, targeted specific pollutants, such as lead, that cause dirty air.
In its Monday ruling, the Supreme Court majority agreed that global warming represents a different kind of air-pollution problem. Gases such as carbon dioxide, once released into the atmosphere, "act like a ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat," the court said.
The majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said that the Clean Air Act said the Environmental Protection Agency shall regulate the emission of "any air pollutant" that is likely "to endanger public health or welfare."
He noted that the word "welfare" is defined broadly to include "effects on the climate and weather."
In scolding the EPA for not moving to regulate greenhouse gases, he said the emissions fit well within the law's definition of air pollutants and that the agency "has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles."
The court did not say EPA must set national emissions standards for motor vehicles. But it made clear the agency must make its case if it chooses not to act.
"Under the clear terms of the (law), EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or it provides some reasonable explanation" why regulations are not needed, Stevens said.
New regulations limiting greenhouse gases would probably force automakers to produce vehicles that burn less gasoline.
Concurring with Stevens' opinion in the case were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Disagreeing were the court's four most consistently conservative members -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito.
Roberts, in his dissent, said that even though global warming may be "the most pressing environmental issue of our time," how to deal with it should be resolved by Congress and the president, not the court.
A former Bush administration lawyer at EPA said she was disappointed in the ruling. "I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the court stepped into a policy issue that is better left to Congress," said Ann R. Klee. "We need a global political solution to the global warming problem."
Automobile makers have said they are producing more fuel-efficient vehicles, but that federal limits on emissions would put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Reacting to the court's decision, Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the industry wanted to work "constructively" with Congress and the administration on a "national . . . economy-wide approach to addressing greenhouse gases."
Environmentalists, however, hailed the case's outcome.
"Today's ruling is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director. It "sends a clear signal to the markets that the future lies not in the dirty, outdated technologies of yesterday, but in the clean energy solutions that will fuel the economy of tomorrow."
Stevens, in his majority opinion, specifically rejected the "laundry list of reasons not to regulate" that the Bush administration put forth.
They included the assertion that regulations on emissions by new autos "might impair the president's ability's to negotiate with 'key developing nations' to reduce emissions."
Stevens said, "While the president had broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."
The ruling arose from an unusual lawsuit. Twelve states -- led by Massachusetts and California -- sued the Bush administration after the EPA refused to take action on greenhouse gases.
The other states were Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. An array of environmental groups joined the suit as well.
Roberts said the suit should have been thrown out because the states had no standing to sue the EPA.
Lawyers for Massachusetts said the state is slowly losing coastal land due to the rise of the ocean's waters. Roberts called this "pure conjecture" that did not establish the state's right to press the suit.
Scalia, in his dissent, said the court should have upheld the EPA's judgment that regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions were not warranted.
"The court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified," Scalia said, but "this court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."
Jennifer Wood, a spokeswoman for EPA, said the agency was "reviewing the court's decision to determine the appropriate course of action."