will it suck like this?
Or worse, like the one with Alicia Silverstone? Bat fans and environmentalists wanna know!
Like a Bat-sequel sprung from the cursed mind of Joel Schumacher, you have to wonder how ugly this summer blockbuster could get (via Seed and ScienceBlogs) :
The future of carbon dioxide regulation is up in the air, and it's not up to scientists or even industry to determine what lies ahead. Instead, that duty falls to experts in jurisprudence, not climatology.
Next summer, the Supreme Court will hear its first major global warming case: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case, which asks whether the federal government should have to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, will bring the science of climate change from the lab bench to the judicial bench—giving nine justices the chance to reshape the dialogue on global warming.
"If the Supreme Court just says climate change is real, even if they don't do anything else, that would be significant," said Daniel Farber, an environmental and constitutional law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
[snip]
Massachusetts v. EPA could make a splash even before the Court decides on its merits. First, the justices have to decide whether the petitioners—the states and nonprofits that are suing—have standing, or a legitimate stake in the outcome of the case. If the Court decides in favor of the petitioners, it will indicate that the justices believe carbon dioxide emissions are indeed contributing to climate change and therefore are an affront to public health.
Then, and only then, will the justices decide on the case's merits, determining whether the EPA can legally regulate emissions—and whether it should have to.
"If they reach the merits they are going to have to make some statement about the realities of global warming," said David Faigman, author of Laboratory of Justice: The Supreme Court's 200-Year Struggle to Integrate Science and the Law.
Even a clear statement from the Court will leave an uncertain future. A victory for the environmentalists would give the federal government the power to regulate CO2 emissions—and the power to decide how strictly or loosely to do so. On the other hand, an EPA victory hands this power back to the states, including the petitioners—who would then have the authority to set their own standards. Paradoxically, a ruling against the petitioners might ultimately result in the major emissions restrictions they seek.
In making their decision, the justices will have a wealth of science-friendly resources at their disposal—should they choose to consult them. There's the National Resource Council report—however the Supreme Court judges choose to interpret it—and amicus curiae briefs in which scientific experts offer their opinions. There are also neutral technical advisors to explain advanced math and chemistry.
However, according to Faigman, "The Supreme Court sometimes flies a little blind in these areas."
Even though the Court did ask experts to weigh in on recent cases regarding thermal imaging technology and Internet pornography filtering, the justices have a habit of going it alone when it comes to science. Historically, their success has been mixed. In some instances, such as in the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Court has fallen prey to trends in popular science. At the time, phrenology-based racial hierarchies prompted it to declare that blacks could not become U.S. citizens. When biological science showed that phrenology was bogus, the Court was forced to backpedal.
<< Home