Global warming finally had it’s day in court today, as 12 states, 3 cities and 13 environmental groups argued their case against continued EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) inaction in front of the Supreme Court. There were arguments for and arguments against…all in all, I feel that the event was a success.

Here’s the argument as I understand it. In the midst of what some might refer to as “global warming,” the “EPA” is “not doing anything” to prevent “carbon monoxide” emissions from cars, as is their job under the “Clean Air Act” of 1970. The EPA’s argument is that because scientific evidence doesn’t really come down on either side of global warming, they shouldn’t be using their authority under the act, even if they had it, which they claim they don’t (let’s ignore for a moment the fact that that last argument iis just plain old wrong).

Now, as you might imagine, those in favor of increased regulation have their work cut out for them. First and foremost, they need to demonstrate that they have standing to bring the case, which means that they need to demonstrate a likelihood that they will be harmed if the EPA continues on course. Then they need to demonstrate that by regulating the emissions that harm will be avoided. They’re up against the tough crowd, too. Alito and Roberts are sticking with the “negligible damage” theory while Scalia is just reveling in his own smart-assedness. According the New York Times, he good ol’ Antonin started off the proceedings by asking “When is the predicted cataclysm.”

Regardless, I’m not really here to talk about the merits of the case, or the utter absurdity of the fact that it’s currently being argued in front of the Supreme Court of the United States of America as if it was some negligence claim in a drunk driving accident. Why I’m concerned about is the harm…as in, “why not just do it…what’s the harm?”

Granted, you have that whole pesky automobile industry backing up the EPA (as well as Michigan…but that’s really just being redundant). Still, what I fail to understand is the ultimate (not the temporary economic) drawback of making the air cleaner. This is the same argument I like to use when people try to argue against gay marriage. You just spring one of those “why do you care” questions on them and then walk away while the gears in their head come to a grinding halt and their system of so-called-morals comes crumbling down on their stupendous sense of illogical worldliness.

The argument just isn’t there. If you want to make the public policy argument that the economy just can’t handle the financial hit to big oil right now, or that Chrysler is too concerned with trying to deal with last years discounts and employee retention contract to develop an environmentally friendly automobile, then make that your argument. But to get up there and use an argument like “well…it might be bad…but it might be good…so we’re just gonna, you know…not do anything,” makes us seem ignorant. Your house don’t need to be certain that your house will one day catch on fire to insure your house from fires…it’s just the right thing to do.

Only good things can come from cleaner air. Any argument otherwise is pure insanity. Fiscally speaking, it might not be the greatest move right now – and ultimately, I’m not smart enough to know whether or not Global Warming is real. What it all boils down to is the fact that you can’t look me in the eyes and tell me it’s not a good thing for the environment – negligible, perhaps – but that’s as much as I’ll give you.

That’s all I’ve got…

Be Sociable, Share!