STATE GOVERNMENT A.G.'S TRY TO SET NATIONAL GLOBAL WARMING POLICIES

From the National Center for Public Policy Research:

"According to a press release announcing the events, "New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch, Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell and the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will announce on July 21, 2004 the filing of a major lawsuit to curb global warming in the United States, in conjunction with the attorneys general of California, Iowa and Wisconsin.".....

According to a July 20 Associated Press article by Mark Johnson, "Eight states and New York City intend to sue five of the country's largest power producers to demand they cut carbon dioxide emissions, which are believed to be linked to global warming. The attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, as well as New York City's corporation counsel, will file a public nuisance lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in Manhattan, according to a draft news release...

The states contend carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by increasing efficiency at coal-burning plants, switching from coal to cleaner burning fuels, investing in energy conservation, and using clean energy sources such as wind and solar power.

Environmental policies properly are established by legislators voting in view of the public, not by lawyers in courtrooms. As the New York Attorney General's office describes it, "the Attorney General serves as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens." What happened to the citizens' right to be governed by a legislature it selects?

"Global warming" -- the theory that behavior by human beings is causing the Earth to warm significantly -- is highly contested scientific issue, one on which many climate scientists disagree. Even those scientists who believe human behavior is causing the planet to warm disagree significantly about causes and degree.

Scientists furthermore differ on the impact global warming would have on the Earth. Some expect global warming would cause sea levels to rise. Others believe it could cause sea levels to lower -- as increased amounts of water vapor in the air result in more snow congregating at the still-frozen poles.

Some global warming debaters stress the possibility that global warming could hurt plants, while others note the beneficial effect of increased carbon dioxide levels on plant life (carbon dioxide is, roughly speaking, to plants what oxygen is to human beings).

Court decisions are blunt instruments and ill-suited for determining policies on such matters as global warming, where opinions are constantly undergoing change as new scientific knowledge is gained. The judicial branch, unlike the legislative, is not designed to accommodate the easy repeal or amendment of flawed policies."


I suspect this might be a blessing in disguise. As long as the courts are unbiased (a big ask) the result should be to show that the evidence for global warming does not stack up

*****************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

*****************************************