Of the three stories I’ve read today on the global warming arguments made at the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, this New York Times story did the best job of summing up the varied implications of the case.
It’s tough to deduce what the court is going to do based on the arguments, but yesterday’s arguments pull back the curtain on where most of the justices stand.
The Times says:
On one level, the argument was about the meaning of the Clean Air Act, which the Environmental Protection Agency maintains does not treat carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as air pollutants and thus does not give the agency the authority to regulate them.
On another level, the argument was about whether the dozen states, three cities and many environmental groups that went to federal court to challenge the agency’s position had legal standing to pursue their lawsuit.
And on still another level, the courtroom action was an episode in a policy debate that began well before this case arrived on the Supreme Court’s docket and that will continue, in the political sphere, no matter what the justices decide.
By the end of the argument, that continuing debate appeared the only certain outcome.
Anyone else see a good synopsis? Pass it along.