Here is an interesting Article by Kenneth Green, of the American.Com magazine. Green believes that the EPA has a “very tricky mission” after the Supreme Court decision which declares that the EPA has the authority to adopt regulations to limit CO2 emissions from American vehicles.
Green thinks that there isn’t a clear rule that the EPA can adopt which will reduce automotive CO2, without requiring a change in the fuel that motor vehicles use. This is because higher MPG standards are offset by increased driving.
The New York Times believes this is a milestone for the Global Warming movement.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal, believes that,
“The ruling doesn’t necessarily mean the EPA will have to impose new regulations. But the decision is seen as a boost to advocates of stronger central government interventions based on fears of global warming.”
The Wall Street Journal has an article which speculates that the Supreme Court decision will be used by Global Warming advocates to prove their scientific case. The article says,
“Al Gore will have no trouble finding in Monday’s Supreme Court ruling more evidence that global warming is a reality, indeed a dire threat.
He will soon say — you can take this to the bank — words like: “Now, even a majority of the Supreme Court has recognized the danger of global warming.” And he’ll be right in the sense that the Court invokes the magic word “consensus” for a physical fact that itself is unproven, unprovable and exists purely in the realm of speculation.”
It’s interesting to read such different interpretations of the Supreme Court’s decision. This is what happens when the court crosses the line and dips its foot into policy-making.
For those who just want to read the decision of the Supreme Court for themselves, it’s Linked Here. The case is entitled Massachusetts vs. EPA, 4-2-2007
Tom, your interpretation seems libertarian to an extreme. You seem not to consider the possibility that the Court was correctly interpreting the EPA’s legal mandate to regulate pollutants/emissions under the law. And if the law says the EPA has a job to do, then it would seem the Supreme Court can, and should, interpret whether they’re doing or neglecting their job when such a thing is questioned, and it reaches that level of the courts.
Contrary to your own opinion stated here on your blog, and some other minority opinions, they determined that CO2 is in fact a pollutant, and that even if it’s not driving all recent climate change, there’s enough evidence from a wide enough range of scientists to say it does affect climate, and should be regulated.
Since I last left a comment on your blog, I’ve found many more conservative commentators and economists who admit there is enough science behind the global warming claims. Some of the economists argue, like you, that the cure may be more expensive than the disease, but admit the science. Others claim that doing nothing would be more costly, and the longer we wait, the worse it could be. Not preparing for that possible future seems like choosing to be the lazy grasshopper instead of the industrious ant in the fable who is storing up grain for the winter.
Few of the economists I’ve read factor in the economic benefits to the US (and MN) of not buying so much oil and natural gas from outside the country, and not buying so much coal from out of state.
You seem to take a free-market stand against global warming and carbon taxes, and against regulations and increased investment in renewable energy, if it would mean raising taxes. You question not only the science, but also the economics. That’s fine. You certainly have a right to take that sort of position.
But in your last campaign, you billed yourself as being able to work well across the aisle. Some folks might have thought that meant you were a moderate. They may not have considered that you were somewhat far to the right, but just able to discuss it in a civil way with Democrats.
You pride yourself, and have been honored, as a supporter of small businesses, which is a wonderful thing. Nothing wrong with that.
And yet for many small businesses in your district, there could be large bonuses to a move toward locally owned, renewable energy. A lot of money that now leaves our communities could stay closer to home.
It seems to me that much of the anti-Gore, anti-global warming hype comes from conservative commentators, organizations and think-tanks that either receive funding or ad revenue from big oil, coal and energy, or has strong ties to Wall Street, which may long favor large publicly traded stocks over more local-based renewable energy.
It disappoints me to see your continued, steadfast opposition, because it seems you’re more certain of your position than even the scientists and economists, and it seems your position benefits Wall Street and big oil, energy and coal more than the economic future of your district.
But perhaps you have an analysis you have not yet shared about how all this fits together, and why more investment in local, renewable might be bad for small business owners, etc. I hope you’ll let us know more of your thoughts on the economics.
Tom:
I was also curious what data supports this:
“This is because higher MPG standards are offset by increased driving.”
That means that if you take the single-driver SUV’s and trucks, and either raise the MPG, or motivate the drivers to buy smaller vehicles, folks will drive more? Why would higher MPG result in increased driving?
That would only seem to be true if the price of gas remained somewhat constant: Then folks might consider taking road trips in their great-mileage vehicles.
But in 1999, Cheney said oil demand would continue to rise (especially with China), and supply would drop off by 3% a year. CEO Andrew Gould of Schlumberger, the oil services firm, predicted 8%. Many oil companies and CEO’s are downplaying talk of peak oil, but other indicators point to the probability that we’ve already peaked, and that oil will start to get very expensive, even for little hybrid drivers with high MPG.
This is not a matter of a simple bell curve, where the demand remains consistent and the oil supply will dwindle at the same rate at which it rose. Because demand will keep increasing while supply is falling, the relative drop in supply will be sharp, along with the rise in expense to gather and refine, and the rise in price.
So I think that even if the EPA mandates better MPG’s, any increase in driving will only be temporary, till gas prices take off.