Getting political....

[taerowyn]

The Supreme Court meme

Gacked from liz_marcs:

In an upcoming interview with Katie Couric to be aired this week, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) FListers, please take the meme to your LJ to spread the fun.

So totally not out of character for me, I'm going with the very recent Massachusetts v. EPA. Shockingly a GOOD decision out of the Bush-era SCOTUS. Basically, the Bush-era EPA was un-shockingly trying to avoid doing anything about global warming. They claimed they had no authority to limit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions from vehicles, which, according to them, were not covered by the Clean Air Act.

Well, let's see...the Clean Air Act states that an air pollutant is any "physical, chemical, biological (or) radioactive substance or matter [that] is emitted or otherwise enters the ambient air." In addition, it authorizes the EPA to regulate any pollutant that the agency determines to "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The act specifically defines "welfare" to include adverse effects on "weather" and "climate."

In a surprise move, the Court sided on common sense and said that yes, heat-trapping emissions are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and, in order to actually, you know, protect the environment as they're supposed to, the Environmental Protection Agency does indeed have the authority to regulate them

So yeah....go SCOTUS!

---

Adam Sandler Politics

The above was the rare Bush-era good political move...the below is one of the more all too common *headdesk* moments.

Seems that a Bush appointee used, and I kid you not, the asinine Adam Sandler movie I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry as an example of why federal employees with same sex partners shouldn't get equal employee benefits. No, really...he did. If you happen to want to tell him that you'd prefer policy that wasn't founded on Adam Sandler movies...you can let him know here.

---

GOTV

And finally...Get out the vote...clocks ticking down on when you can register:

Comments

[phanatic.livejournal.com]

Well, let's see...the Clean Air Act states that an air pollutant is any "physical, chemical, biological (or) radioactive substance or matter [that] is emitted or otherwise enters the ambient air."

Wow. Water vapor is a pollutant, as are...oxygen and nitrogen. Brilliant!

[taerowyn.livejournal.com]

Yes, if you take the first statement while totally ignoring the second.

Bravo.

[phanatic.livejournal.com]

They're separate statements, and you even phrased them that way. Here, look:

"the Clean Air Act states that an air pollutant is any "physical, chemical, biological (or) radioactive substance or matter [that] is emitted or otherwise enters the ambient air."

Under this definition, water vapor is a pollutant. It's a chemical substance that is emitted or otherwise enters the ambient air.

The second statement, to wit:

"In addition, it authorizes the EPA to regulate any pollutant that the agency determines to "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.""

is entirely separate and independent, and in no way alters the fact that the act has such a poor definition of "air pollution" that I'm polluting the air when I boil water for pasta.

[taerowyn.livejournal.com]

All right fine, I didn't want to get the full wonk on, but apparently you want to get into detail. You DO have to take the two statements together as the initial statement is in the overarching DEFINITIONS section of the Clean Air Act:

The term "air pollutant" means any air pollution agent or
combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical,
biological, radioactive (including source material, special
nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter
which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such
term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollut-
ant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such
precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the
term "air pollutant" is used.

And yes, by those standards water vapor is a pollutant; however, the Act actually does use common sense (shocking in government, I know) and adds limitations (so you needn't worry about your pasta).

First, focusing on a very precise list of air pollutants (listed under section 112(b)of the Act, I'll leave it to you to look it up for yourself) and then, pertinent to this case, allowing to add to that list:

For the purpose of establishing national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, the Administrator shall within 30 days after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 publish, and shall from time to time thereafter revise, a list which includes each air pollutant -
(A) emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;
(B) the presence of which in the ambient air results from
numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources; and
(C) for which air quality criteria had not been issued
before the date of enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of
1970, but for which he plans to issue air quality criteria
under this section.

[taerowyn.livejournal.com]

Oh, and before you make the "water vapor =g reenhouse gas" argument, yes, water vapor does both function as a GHG and amplify the effect of other GHGs. However, anthropogenic emissions of water vapor (or in Clean Air Act terms, water vapor emissions brought about by urbanization, industrial development, and the increasing use of motor vehicles) are not the main source of water vapor in the atmosphere. The amount of human emissions of H2O is relatively insignificant, so would not qualify in the terms above.

[taerowyn.livejournal.com]

My bad, I forgot the case was centered around motor vehicles, so the actual pertinent section is:

The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and
from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of
this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air
pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or
contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Such
standards shall be applicable to such vehicles and engines for
their useful life (as determined under subsection (d), relating
to useful life of vehicles for purposes of certification),
whether such vehicles and engines are designed as complete
systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such
pollution.

But my point still stands.