Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103704)	4/2/2007 11:26:24 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 361375

WONDERFUL News up yours Mr Cheney

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103704)	4/2/2007 11:28:06 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361375

Los Angeles suffers longest dry spell in 130 years Sun Apr 1, LOS ANGELES (AFP) - Los Angeles is going through its longest dry spell in at least 130 years, the National Weather Service said Sunday, fueling fears of rampant wildfires which have plagued the US west coast in recent years. "The rain season is currently the driest to date in downtown Los Angeles since records began in 1877," the weather service said in a statement. It said the southern California city had received just 2.47 inches (6.27 centimeters) of rain since July 1, 2006, far from the normal precipitation of 13.94 inches (35.4 centimeters) in the same period. "If downtown Los Angeles receives less than 1.95 inches of rain from now through June 30th this will become the driest rain season ever," it said.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103704)	4/2/2007 12:12:24 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361375

MSNBC.com Rebuke for administration on emissions Justices order government to re-examine regulations on car emissions BREAKING NEWS MSNBC News Services Updated: 9:56 a.m. CT April 2, 2007 WASHINGTON - In a defeat for the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a U.S. government agency has the power under the clean air law to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming. The nation’s highest court by a 5-4 vote said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “has offered no reasoned explanation” for its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new cars and trucks that contribute to climate change. The ruling came in one of the most important environmental cases to reach the Supreme Court in decades. It marked the first high court decision in a case involving global warming. Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion. The court’s four conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — dissented. Many scientists believe greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, are leading to a warming of the Earth, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes. The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case. Democrats took control of Congress last November. The world’s leading climate scientists reported in February that global warming is “very likely” caused by man and is so severe that it will “continue for centuries.” Former Vice President Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” — making the case for prompt action on climate change — won an Oscar. Business leaders are saying they are increasingly open to congressional action to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, of which carbon dioxide is the largest. Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. One way to reduce those emissions is to have more fuel-efficient cars. Three questions The court had three questions before it. # Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision? # Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases? # Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions? The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a “laundry list” of reasons that include foreign policy considerations. The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act. “EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the court’s swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy. The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that had grown frustrated by the Bush administration’s inaction on global warming. Chief Justice dissents In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit. The court should simply recognize that redress of the kind of grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said. His position “involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem,” he said. The decision also is expected to boost California’s prospects for gaining EPA approval of its own program to limit tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval of standards that are stricter than national norms. © 2007 MSNBC InteractiveReuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report. URL: msnbc.msn.com