"The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change 'endanger public health and welfare,' setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws."
In 2007 the Supreme Court issued one of the worst decisions in its history, ranking right up there with the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which decided that blacks in America effectively had no right to freedom and could be bought and sold like a commodity. The recent decision by the EPA, based on the Supreme Court case, has the potential to eliminate much of everyone's freedom.
In the 2007 decision, the octogenarian scientific illiterates of the Supreme Court decided that CO2 is a pollutant, and thus subject to regulation by the EPA. Calling CO2 a pollutant is like calling water or oxygen a pollutant. In fact, CO2 is an absolutely essential gas. All of the carbon in our carbon based life on earth comes from CO2.
Nor is there any real evidence that increasing CO2 is harmful. Currently CO2 levels are only 1/3 of the average of the last half billion years, and plants are happier at higher CO2 levels. By the way, humans emit a tiny fraction of total CO2 emissions by nature.
The Bush administration wisely elected not to pursue CO2 regulation, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that the Obama administration has reversed that decision. The fact is, EPA regulation of CO2 emissions means the power to regulate literally every aspect of human activity, for civilization is based on burning fuels which emit CO2. There is simply no practical substitute, in spite of pie in the sky environmental propaganda.
So the power of the EPA to regulate Americans is about to become virtually infinite, limited only by the imagination of environmental extremists and fear of political consequences. No doubt, the regulatory train will start slowly and gather momentum so people can become accustomed to more and more intrusive regulation.
Virtually no aspect of life will be safe from the power of the EPA. After all, we exhale CO2. Population control, anyone? They could argue that keeping people on life support increases the level of CO2. Abortion clearly reduces CO2 emissions.
Want to have to get an EPA permit to go to the store? You'll be generating CO2, after all. The EPA will be able to decide what you set your thermostat to in the winter, and whether you'll be allowed to have air conditioning in the summer. No doubt your next car, if you can get one, will be smaller and thus more dangerous. But hey, auto deaths have their bright side - no more exhaling CO2.
If you think these projections are outlandish, remember the history of the Endangered Species Act, which was originally sold to keep national icons like the bald eagle from becoming extinct, but has evolved to throw thousands of people out of work because they might disturb a small genetic variation in a minnow.
Extremists in the environmental movement have said that humans are pollutants. Perhaps they'll be able to get the Supremes to agree to that as well - it makes just as much sense.