SCOTUS scores another blow in favour of clean air

PMS might want to sit up and take notice of two very important decisions made by the US Supreme Court today, both on environmental issues. Once again, the "tree huggers" on the Court have won the day albeit in one case barely. In the first case, Massachusetts v. EPA (05-1120), the court overturned the DC Court of Appeal and by a vote of 5-4 found that, contrary to Dubya's arguments, Congress did in fact give the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks and in fact said the agency must investigate how those releases contribute to global warming.

In the second, Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy (05-848), SCOTUS said unanimously that a power plant must apply for a permit to increase emissions if pollutants increase on an overall annual basis, not just hourly. In other words, the "intensity" defence went out the window. However, there are some technical issues on which Duke can still make its case so the case was remanded back to the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

Pollution is a cross-border concern as we well know (after all, the Nanticoke thermal plant is a pain in the ass for Western New York). That being said, it's good to see that despite its overwhelmingly conservative stance the US Supremes still understand just how bogus "intensity" is. One can not make real reductions in pollution if companies or individuals are allowed merely to emit less but the overall total remains the same because other companies or individuals just come in and take their place. Let's not forget, the original Clean Air Act in 1970, a law that covered just 3 percent of the world's then population, allowed for a substantial improvement in water quality in Antarctica even though the first year the total releases went down just a few percentage points.

So if PMS wants to talk about real reforms to our clean air legislation, he should forget about "intensity" and instead accept the recommendations of the Parliamentary committee and not call an election on the issue. True, there may be some short-term inconvenience. But the growth opportunities in terms of developing cleaner technology and processes can't be underestimated -- and we are more than capable of growing it ourselves rather than buying it off the shelf overseas.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.