|
|
|||||||||||||||||
First Amendment to the US Constitution:
|
5 TO 4 RULING CHASTIZES EPA FOR SHIRKING ITS RESPONSIBILITIES FOR YEARS 2 April 2007 In a lawsuit brought by 12 states, several cities and a dozen pro-environment organizations against the federal government, the US Supreme Court has handed down a narrow 5 to 4 ruling reversing Bush administration policy that avoids regulating carbon dioxide emissions. The Court says the Clean Air Act specifically authorizes the EPA to enforce such regulation in order to protect the public and effect clean air standards. The ruling means that inaction to find and punish violations of standards set by the Clean Air Act runs contrary to the EPA mandate. The lawsuit was brought by states that saw their own budgetary considerations, public health and fieldwork capabilities strained by the extra work their administrators were being asked to do in order to keep in line with federal clean air provisions. The ruling will help to bring about a new wave of pressure from the federal government to push industry toward not only compliance with existing measures, but innovations that would reduce the overall likelihood of or reliance on carbon and chemical pollution as a standard pillar of the business process in certain industries. Some activists have also floated the idea of pushing for further investigations into the possibility of an independent probe into possible collusion between industry and government officials, and into the events leading up to one of the earliest cabinet resignations during Pres. Bush's term in office, that of former New Jersey governor Chrstine Todd Whitman as head of the EPA. [s]
BACKGROUND: U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour has struck down a Bush administration policy loosening regulation of toxic pesticides. He found the rule change "striking in its total lack of any evidence of technical or scientific support for the policy positions ultimately adopted" and further chastised the government for failing to properly apply the Endangered Species Act. [Full Story] BILL PRESENTED TO PREVENT GOV'T TAMPERING WITH SCIENCE Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) is to introduce an amendment to legislation currently under debate, which would restrict the executive branch's ability to gag scientists, manipulate their findings or demote those who disagree with official policy. The legislation would also require that scientists appointed to investigatory panels be selected for their credentials, not their political views. [Full Story] SCIENCE ABOVE TECHNOCRACY, FOR A FULLER FUTURE Science is in many ways an artform, but it is specifically and most importantly, the art of knowledge. It is not philosophy, not a study of how knowledge comes about, what it is, whether it can be trusted or whether we need to adjust our thinking; it is, instead, a direct study of the natural world, its tendencies, its evidence, and its capacity to work with us, for us and around us. [Full Story] GOV'T POLICY UNLAWFULLY CRIMINALIZES COMMENT ON SCIENTIFIC FACT The global environment is, of course, a global issue, one that touches every life on the planet, and the science about it should be open and available to all. Past government policy and existing federal law mean that such scientific evidence should be readily available to the public. But now, it appears that several agencies are laboring to silence scientists who are researching climate trends and alterations. [Full Story] POPULATION, LAND, AND CONFLICT As land and water become scarce and as competition for these vital resources intensifies, we can expect mounting social tensions within societies, particularly between those who are poor and dispossessed and those who are wealthy, as well as among ethnic and religious groups. Population growth brings with it a steady shrinkage of life-supporting resources per person. [Full Story] |
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Original, Graphic Content © 2000-08 Sentido