The Volokh Conspiracy
[Jonathan Adler, November 30, 2006 at 7:46am] Trackbacks
More Reax to Mass v. EPA Argument:

Here are some more reactions and analyses of yesterday's oral argument in Massachusetts v. EPA:

If that's not enough, Howard rounds up some of the news covereage here. I hope to post more of my own thoughts later today.

UPDATE: Here are some more:

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Another Mass v. EPA Op-Ed:
  2. More Reax to Mass v. EPA Argument:
  3. Early Reax to Mass v. EPA Argument:
  4. Quick Take on Mass v. EPA:
  5. The NYT on Mass v. EPA:
  6. Mass v. EPA Previews:
  7. Massachusetts v. EPA at AEI:
  8. Massachusetts v. EPA Event:
Tom952 (mail):
In the following passage, Roberts asks about a reduction of atmospheric CO2, and Milkey answers with a description of how a small rise in sea level would flood a large area of land:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I mean, do we know that that's a straight line ratio, that a reduction of two-and-a-half percent of carbon dioxide -- well, two and a half overall would save two-and-a-half percent of your coastline? Is that how it works? I'm not a scientist, but I'd be surprised if it was so rigid.

MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, I don't believe it's established it's necessarily a straight line. But I want to emphasize that small vertical rises cause a large loss of horizontal land. For example, where the slope is less than 2 percent, which is true of much of the Massachusetts coastline, every foot rise will create a loss of more than 50 feet of horizontal land. And for example, in the State of New York, the Oppenheimer


It is frightening that serious issues may be decided based on such flagrant miscommunication.
11.30.2006 9:03am
AF:
Wow. If it's true what Roger Pielke and David Roberts say -- that the science says the effect on Mass's coast line will be undetectable -- why in God's name did nobody point this out? It's the central issue in the case!
11.30.2006 9:45am
posterboy:
If anyone wants more information on the links between CO2 levels, polar ice melt, and coastal submersion, check out the movie An Inconvenient Truth, featuring lectures by Al Gore. The justices should have been forced to watch it before arguments, since the central issue in the case is whether the EPA is faced with sufficient scientific evidence to make their inaction inappropriate.
11.30.2006 3:05pm
Guest44 (mail) (www):
This issue sure brings out the crazies. You guys realize there are actually some legal issues here? There is a standing doctrine with multiple prongs, there are statutory construction doctrines, and there are administrative law doctrines. An Inconvenient Truth isn't going to explain, for example, whether or not a single coastal land owner would have had standing to sue EPA just as much as MA might.

Althouse has the best legal analysis so far.
11.30.2006 3:25pm
Eli Rabett (www):
Seems to me that everyone agreed that CO2 was an air pollutant, and the argument revolved around whether the damage was significant or redressible. Are those not matters for a trial court?
11.30.2006 3:38pm
bluecollarguy:
Seems to me that everyone agreed that CO2 was an air pollutant....

Yeah that was good for a chuckle, wasn't it?
11.30.2006 7:41pm
Lev:

If anyone wants more information on the links between CO2 levels, polar ice melt, and coastal submersion, check out the movie An Inconvenient Truth,


I think the Art Bell/Whitley Streiber documentary, The Day After Tomorrow, heartily endorsed by their fellow documentarian Al Gore, is a much better treatment of the subject matter.
11.30.2006 10:09pm

PicoSearch
Help