Whose Atmosphere is it?
EmailVermont is not usually a battleground. But it’s one of a dozen states that’s been in court, arguing that if the federal government isn’t going to control greenhouse gas emissions, the states ought to. The states won in federal district court yesterday, and you can find the decision HERE. There will doubtless be appeals. You may recall, back in the spring, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide–from cars, factories, etc.–is a pollutant, affecting people’s health or welfare, and the EPA ought to be regulating it under the Clean Air Act. "This decision should put the nail in the coffin of the failed arguments of the auto industry," says a statement from the Sierra Club, which was party to the lawsuit. "In this trial they used every tired argument about safety, job losses, lack of technology, and doubts about the science of global warming that they had–the same things they have been saying to the public and to Congress for decades." A statement from Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers: "It makes sense that only the federal government can regulate fuel economy. Automakers support improving fuel economy standards nationally, rather than piecemeal and will continue to work with the Congress, NHTSA and EPA to reduce our oil dependence while increasing fuel economy." The full text is HERE. Since the Supreme Court decision, the White House has promised to increase auto fuel efficiency. And the President has promised a climate change summit for this fall. In the meantime, is it Vermont’s job (or California’s or someone else’s) to regulate its part of the atmosphere? Thoughts welcome.
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I like breathing all of that good stuff that comes here from China and everywhere else. Stop being so picky about the air. When I can stop all of this waist of time in breathing and start sucking up my air with a soup spoon then I will start to worry. I like soup! And grapes! Oh boy.
Posted by: viet vet | September 13, 2007, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
I recall an aphorism that “power abhors a vacuum.” Or, in this case, if the federal government won’t regulate air quality, then the individual states believe it their right to do so. As well-intentioned as the states might be in this crusade, it seems to me that the legislation would be far too piecemeal and far too onerous for auto manufacturers to comply with, and would be hellish to enforce with scarce resources in virtually all state budgets.
Moreover, since the atmosphere can’t be divided into neat, state-shaped parcels, what would happen to a state with more liberal pollution standards next to a state with more stringent ones? As loath aa I am for further federal regulation, this is an area which the federal government MUST act and not leave to individual states, the marketplace, or promises of future breakthroughs.
Posted by: chuck | September 13, 2007, 2:06 pm 2:06 pm
It is about time that someone grab the wheel because the driver (gwb) is a DRUNKEN FOOL who is determined to make as much money for his corporate sponsors as possible before his term is over (or hopefully IMPEACHED).
Posted by: GW-is-SATAN | September 13, 2007, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
If we don’t act now, we’ll be very sorry about it later. It’s time to listen to what science has been telling us for a very long time and to what is proving to be true. We are affecting the atmosphere, the planet is warming and the consequences will be dire.
Posted by: Eric | September 13, 2007, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
The Federal government has dragged it’s feet for decades. If they won’t take common sense action in the face of our ever-burgeoning roadways, the states should have the right to do it for them.
Posted by: David | September 13, 2007, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
Both should have a part. The federal government could set a minimum standard allowing states to exceed, but not drop below the federal standard. I thought this was already in effect, as I pay extra for my vehicle state emmissions check.
Posted by: Autumn | September 13, 2007, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
There was another article on the ABC news website about how animals emit methane when they pass gass and if we eat less meat, we will bread fewer animals and save the planet. This article just goes to show just how ridiculous the global warming issue has become.
I don’t think I’m alone in my thinking either. The latest Zogby poll states that only 31% of the public truly believe Al Gore and his followers. That leaves the other 69% that still need to be won over.
….and the Zogby poll didn’t come from big oil or the Fox News channel either. Since this is a “Zogby” poll, the 31% who support Gore and his followers is probably an exaggeration. His support is probably even lower.
Posted by: Joseph F. Mattaino | September 13, 2007, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
State or federal, I don’t wait on others. I now have a horse. Why? Because my children and their children have more right to the resources of this planet than I do.
If I take the total oil, divided by the total population I have used beyond my birth right in my first 10 years on earth.
Future generations will call this generation, the “generation of thieves”.
Who stole resources they have equal right to – but not being here yet to defend themselves we ripped them off blind.
I am not waiting for State or Fed’s to change the world, I’m a part of it and taking the change as my personal responsibility.
Besides, I learned the horse is “cheaper” than the car!
Any move by anyone to accept responsibility for change (evolution) is a friend to the next generations, who for all we know may have a “far” greater need of these resources than this generation does.
Not out to distract from the topic, but to introduce the “personal” responsibility we all have – in addition to that of states and federal government.
I am an American, it is my responsibility to change this world by changing how I live in it.
Part of this world, forcing myself to change, “before” the world (clean air?) forces me to. Not waiting for the government to do so for me. If we governed “our selves”….. how big would our government then be? I cant tell the rest of the world to change, but I can force myself to! I’m parking my car and turning off the power I dont generate with solar wind and horse.
So I stop PAYING them, to destroy this planet. State or Federal? Keep going, but I’m just tired of waiting.
So I’m doing it myself.
Posted by: Tree | September 13, 2007, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
It is one of our balances of power to have strong state’s rights. When the Federal branch of our government has been so skillfully manuevered into inaction by lobbiests it’s refreshing for the common citizen to know there is another hand to play in our environmental poker game.
Posted by: John | September 13, 2007, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
So,. does this mean Fed & State gov’t will stop silencing American Scientists that report factual data of decreasing Artic ice, and other dramatic environmental changes? not just to the air, but also to our limited global FRESH WATER resources? and allow it’s possibly linked to Global Warming?
It may be a wait to get gov’t consensus, but it’s worth asking?
Posted by: Grace | September 13, 2007, 4:32 pm 4:32 pm
I think the State and Federal government share with me something in common.
We owe our existance to those who risked and gave their lives for these freedoms.
I do not wish to be irresponsible with a gift that came at such a price.
If I feel my government is behaving irresponsibly who am I if I don’t do what I am asking of them to do?
So I accept my responsibility to use my freedom to change and freedom to live my life as I feel fit so long as I don’t prevent others rights to do the same.
I must accept self responsibility, and change how I live, out of respect of the rights of the next generations.
Lest those who risked and gave their lives for these freedoms (and our government owes its existence to), did so in vain.
If they (my government) sit on their hands, the responsibility to get the job done then falls into mine.
Yet to respect the freedom of others, I can not tell the world to change. This all means it is something I clearly must do myself and “change” my own life.
To live more respectful of the rights of others to clean air, clean water, safe food. Because the next 100 generations have more of a right to these things than I have, to pollute it.
I think both state and federal government – have roles they can play in this issue. But who is responsible? I think that finger points at me.
If each individual, accepted the responsibility equally….. the cause for this problem would then, not exist.
If each individual governed themselves in respect of the rights of others, would any government have a reason to exist?
Global change starts with the first person. To change.
If I see my government sit on its hands, then I cant! Someone has to do it and I don’t see that being them.
Thanks to American vets. for my freedom to express that. And to change, in honor and respect, of the ability they gave to me to do so.
With their lives.
Posted by: Tree | September 13, 2007, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
To me it is obscene that people are driving around in giant SUV’s squandering our valuable resources in the belief that large vehicles are safer. In Europe vehicles are achieving 40mpg plus. Here it is considered economical if a vehicle is achieving 26mpg.
Electric vehicles are todays technology but are blocked at every turn by oil company greed.
Posted by: Mark Robinson | September 13, 2007, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm
If “we the people” don’t buy it.. I’ve been sending notice to car manufacturers for 10 years that I “refuse” to buy a new car that is not, all electric.
And if enough people keep doing that?
Posted by: Tree | September 13, 2007, 6:06 pm 6:06 pm
Wouldn’t it be cool if it was mandated that EVERYONE do what the Amish do, & use horse & buggies INSTEAD of cars?!?! PLUS’: reduces global warming, less accidental deaths, cheaper maintenance, no need to try & keep up w/the “Jones’, NO irritating car salesmen/commercials…MINUSES: horse poop EVERYWHERE (but, that would be ALL)! Hmmmmm………….
Posted by: smartinup | September 13, 2007, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
Posted by Autumn: they leave more behind than manure. I dont think the horse is the solution for the masses, even if it could be for very many.
I think it may need to be more unique for the individuals living situation, some would be better off with an electric car (Posted by Mark Robinson), but the source of power for the electricity, also needs to be green or the change wont do much.
But unlike gas cars, with the electric car you the have the “ability” to do it green (aside from bio-fuels).
But unlike my cars waist, I can put my horses waist into my garden so it grows better, which, breaths “in” co2.
Helping me clean up the mess I’ve helped make.
I think it would be nicer, if we change, before anyone mandates it, but that we mandate it for ourselves.
If doing it for others isnt motive enough, 1999 I did what I’m about to do again. That year I kept track of my expenses using a garden, solar panels, wind generator and a dog team with car for emergency use only.
Total expenses for 1999 = $970.00
When I stop buying dirty power, my wallet got thicker with green energy.
Which of these 2 do I want to leave behind for my children to inherit?
Next week I turn off the grid, and climb onto my high horse.
Looking forward to buying an electric car I can charge in the sun.
But electric doesn’t work, after all look at the mars rovers (opps!)
I think they will make gas cars so long as people buy them….
So, I wont.
Thanks. Sorry for the many long posts Ned, I just found this place and got to excited, by what the name “Science and Society” implies, if you combine the power of both.
I’ll try to be more quite now…
Posted by: Tree | September 13, 2007, 10:20 pm 10:20 pm
THE ATMOSPHERE IS A SHARED RESOURCE!
Posted by: LORI | September 13, 2007, 10:25 pm 10:25 pm
Since the atmosphere is a shared resource, where is the media to point out that Russia’s big daddy bomb is contaminating “OUR” atmoshpere? Where are the global warming advocates, to impose sanctions to the use of bigger, hotter bombs? Why are people limiting their focus to cars? How many people need to stop driving, to make up for Russia’s one test bomb?
Posted by: jupiter | September 13, 2007, 11:19 pm 11:19 pm
So that just means that without standard national rules/regs – the cost of producing products in Vermont will go up along with gas/heating cost.. I guess if the people who live n Vermont dont care about the increase so be it…… but just remember… no matter how strict you regs get…. you cant stop the wind from blowing the crap from NY, NJ, MA, RI & CT.. into your piece of the Atmosphere… hehehe
Posted by: FifoNY | September 13, 2007, 11:44 pm 11:44 pm
The one theme I saw over and over in mnay of the viewer coments was this, “The Federal Government OUGHT to be regulating this!” Of course it would be much better for America if the Federal Goernment would regulate this with all-encompassing, blanket regulations that raised gas miliage for all cars, limited both auto and industrial emmissions. But the fact of the matter is, they aren’t. And as one commenter put it, ‘Nature abhors a vacuum.” “If you won’t, I will.” Is the new call. California and Mass. hae both regulated auto emmissions for years. I am just suprised that it took the other states so long to take this kind of action.
Posted by: Brian Fredline | September 14, 2007, 12:43 am 12:43 am
To those that insist on claiming globabl warming is man made need to really, really look at the facts. The planet may indeed be warming but at nothing that is above normal. That’s just plain facts. Stop nick picking the stuff you want to use to prove your theroy and look at the BIG picture. There as been a warming/cooling trend on the planet every 1500 years for hundreds of thousands of years. Again, proven fact. This has a lot more to do with the cycles of the sun than man made emmissions.
In fact, the only thing man made about this is the hokie science used to back it up and those that seek to make money on it.
The enviroment actually makes 99.33% of all the gases you claim are causing the problem. Got news for you…the enviroment is a lot more sturdy than people think. A .7% can not tip the balance of the enviroment.
There is a ton of good science out there. If you are reading this you have the resources to find the truth. Stop being put into a panic mode by people that think the sky is falling…..it’s only rain.
Posted by: Tom | September 14, 2007, 7:30 am 7:30 am
Get ready. There will be a carbon emission fee tacked onto your electric bill, car tag, ect. Just another revenue generating scam. I am surprised it took government this long to claim ownership of the air we breath. In case these idiots don’t know it, the air on the planet moves around. What came out of the smoke stack in China last week is hanging over Florida this week. Twelve states or all fifty will not make a difference in the overall air quality of the planet. The entire world would have to change the way we produce power and give up anything that creates exhaust. That ain’t gonna happen! The entire world cannot agree on the smallest of things much less something of that magnitude. Until the fusion method of power generation or something equally clean is worked out we are stuck with chemical combustion.
Posted by: Dan | September 14, 2007, 8:26 am 8:26 am
I agree with Tom, and pleased he mentioned that the science does and has shown for a long time that the planet is in a natural warming cycle. Remember the terms little ice age, and end of the little ice age? The little ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, and the planet has been in a warming cycle for the whole 10,000 years.
“Global Warming” for political purposes is junk science.
If there is more CO2 in the air, the plants absorb CO2, and convert it into oxygen. The animals then have a higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and they actually thrive and grow bigger.
The only reason people can buy into global warming is because, yes the planet is warming… naturally though. The planet would continue to warm, even if we stop driving every car. The media and political scare is political, with junk science, and people willing to produce junk science because they can get grants and funding to pay their mortgages.
The ice has been melting a long time. Remember, the Great Lakes, not too long ago were also ice. There was an ice sheet that covered much of North America.
Posted by: jupiter | September 14, 2007, 9:57 am 9:57 am
There is another story in today’s news, that applies to the warming of the Earth during the last 10,000 years. There is a story about a huge meteorite in a Museum in New York, and the meteorite is 10,000 years old.
I have done a small amount of research, via information available on the internet about this meteorite.
1) In October, 2006, a scholary group found and reported a meteorite in Greensburg Kansas, which has been dated to striking the Earth the same 10,000 years ago. This is a much smaller meteorite, however it shows that the 10,000 year age of meteorite impact is significant. This group of scholars from the Houston Museum of Natural Science, have provided geologic evidence of the meteorite’s placement at the top of the Pleistocene period, 10,000 years ago.
This is the time in geologic history that the last Ice Age ended, and the Earth has gone into a period of warming. This evidence of numerous meteor impacts from the same 10,000 years ago, and the change in global climate 10,000 years ago, provide a fair conclusion that the Earth’s most recent climatic change into the current warming, occurred from an episode of meteorite impacts 10,000 years ago.
2) Sir Fred Hoyle, Britan’s recently deceased Royal Astronomer, has postulated that meteor strikes averaging 10,000 years are responsible for initiating and terminating Ice Ages. Periodic global ice variations and interglacial periods last about 10,000 years. Our current warm interglacial period began about 10,000 years ago.
Posted by: jupiter | September 14, 2007, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm