That's a profoundly undemocratic result — and at odds with the Supreme Court's most recent statement on global warming, in last term's Massachusetts v. EPA.

Massachusetts had sued the EPA to force it to issue new regulations controlling auto emissions.

The high court ruled that Massachusetts could bring such a suit, but the court also cautioned that it has "neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate . . . policy judgments." And it emphasized that it's EPA's judgment — not the judiciary's — that must matter primarily when it comes to the global warming debate.

A polar bear listing might change all that. The root of the problem lies not so much with the nation's environmental laws, but rather with the aims of a few select environmentalist organizations whose purpose is all too often to use existing environmental regulation, and lawsuits enforcing regulation, as a pretext for achieving policy results that could not be reached by petitioning Congress or the state legislatures.

One result of their strategy could be draconian limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.

In short, the cries to save the polar bear through the Endangered Species Act may be as much the attempt of environmental activists to impose their view of man's relationship to the earth on the American people through the courts as it is the fruit of a sincere desire to save a remarkably persistent Arctic mammal. Source

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Subject:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."