Article

2006-11-27 Home Front: Culture Wars

SCOTUS To Decide Global Climate Thingy Case

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2006-11-27 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Sue the volcanos!

Posted by Cholunter Elmineck7388 2006-11-27 03:34|| 2006-11-27 03:34|| Front Page Top

#2 The United States accounts for about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Pure bollocks. Far and away the most potent greenhouse gas is water vapour, which 98% results from the oceans.

Posted by phil_b 2006-11-27 06:09|| 2006-11-27 06:09|| Front Page Top

#3 "Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time and the decision by the court on this case will make a deep and lasting impact for generations to come," says Massachusetts' attorney general, Thomas Reilly.

If this guy's the man they're putting all their chips on, we'll be breathing pure sulfur dioxide by 2010.
Bring your seeing eye dog, Tommy...

Posted by tu3031 2006-11-27 08:56|| 2006-11-27 08:56|| Front Page Top

#4 The United States accounts for about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to phil_b's comment, I think I read somewhere that the US is a net carbon sink. If I understand correctly, our reforestation activities alone fix more carbon than we produce/release, and that doesn't even factor in all the nice golf courses or landscaping you see everywhere.

Posted by Mick Dundee 2006-11-27 09:56|| 2006-11-27 09:56|| Front Page Top

#5 I seem to recall that number two is volcanic emissions, something else the US government has no control over. And isn't #3 emissions from China or India, or forest fires lit by slash & burn farmers in Southeast Asia?

Posted by trailing wife 2006-11-27 14:00|| 2006-11-27 14:00|| Front Page Top

#6 The states, led by Massachusetts, and more than a dozen environmental groups insist the 1970 law makes clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant - much like lead and smog-causing chemicals - that is subject to regulation because its poses a threat to public health.

I might be wrong but isn't soda filled carbonated water and isn't that another way of saying carbon dioxide-impregnated water? Same with beer? If so I should think there would be A LOT of money lined up against any kind of regulations.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-11-27 14:22|| 2006-11-27 14:22|| Front Page Top

#7 forest fires lit by slash & burn farmers in Southeast Asia?

Aka the infamous "brown cloud". But it's not pollution, no, it's... hummmm... errr... huh... well, it's not pollution anyway, since you can't blame the USA in particular, or Rich Capitalist White Men in general.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-11-27 15:58|| 2006-11-27 15:58|| Front Page Top

#8 Next they'll want to regulate the amount of CO2 we exhale. And probably tax it.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-11-27 22:00|| 2006-11-27 22:00|| Front Page Top

21:21 Tim Tyler
21:09 Tim Tyler
17:25 Tim Tyler
17:06 Tim Tyler
12:53 teensfwpaa
23:45 Zenster
23:42 trailing wife
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:36 Atomic Conspiracy
23:35 trailing wife
23:34 Stephen
23:25 wxjames
23:24 trailing wife
23:18 Silentbrick
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:02 gromgoru
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:58 gromgoru
22:55 wxjames
22:51 wxjames
22:50 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:46 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:45 Silentbrick
22:45 Zenster