17 states sue EPA over global warming.
By on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
17 states sue EPA over global warming.
Exactly one year ago today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had to rule immediately on whether it intended to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. One year later, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has continued to drag his heels, leading 17 states to file suit against the EPA today for flouting the Supreme Court’s ruling. The lawsuit seeks to compel the EPA to act within 60 days.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Johnson: “Wow — is it ‘immediately’ already?
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm60 days plus how long before the court rules?
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:25 pmI sure wish I had one year to act immediately.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 pmEPA should be renamed to OIPA
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 pmBush Administration Dictionary:
Immediately – Whenever we feel like it
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:33 pmSo they are leaving it up to States to do the right thing. Go figure, and which states are these, Red ones? Blue ones?
Bush/Cheney
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pmHague Trials ‘09
These guys play stall-ball better than anyone I’ve ever seen. So, even if they win the suit, the EPA will get another two months of free stall time. Add that on top of however long it takes the case to be heard. Then after 60 days, they merely have to say whether they intend to regulate. At which point they will say “yes, but we have to do a study to see how best to regulate it.” At that point Cheney is in Dubai and Bush is long gone to Paraguay.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 pmRunning out the clock, one ignored order at a time.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 pmWe still have an EPA? Could have fooled me! Bush has taken the teeth and funding out of every agency and it appears that this one is run by more of his cronies.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pmThey’ll try to get the lawsuits thrown out of court for “national security” reasons.
Hey, it doesn’t have to make sense — this is BushWorld.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 pmWouldn’t this refusal to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court be considered “contempt of court?” In fact, are the states filing such charges?
“Indirect” contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court, and consists of disobedience of a court’s prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt, and to present evidence in rebuttal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#United_States
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pmisn’t carbon dioxide plant food?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pmThe Green Light
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 pmphantasymanINphantasyland Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
isn’t carbon dioxide plant food?
They call it Life.
http://cei.org/pages/co2.cfm
and
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/18/new-ads-funded-by-big-oil-portray-global-warming-science-as-smear-campaign-against-carbon-dioxide/
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:46 pmLook, I’m the first to admit that I’m not a global warming alarmist, but I firmly believe that we should leave the planet better than when we arrived. And I believe that most of the approaches we’ve taken to combat human contribution to global climate change have been hollow and that said human contribution has probably been overstated and politicized.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 pmphantasymanINphantasyland Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
isn’t carbon dioxide plant food?
Correct. So is feces, but I don’t want it in my water. Already have enough in the White House.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pmCarbon Dioxide is not plant food. It is simply a carbon source for the production of organic food molecules.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:40 pm