Is there any legal basis here for CO2 to be regulated as if it were a pollutant? To be certain, the kind of extreme regulation that activists are fighting for is far beyond the bounds of legal jurisprudence.

Was this decision about science or law?

The Supreme Court majority decided US motor-vehicle emissions make a “meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations” and hence, to global warming.

“A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related,” Justice Stevens wrote. ~abcnews.go.com

This was purely a political decision by the court. A split decision at that, 5 to 4.

First of all, there is no proof that Cars alone cause global warming any more than our exhalation does. Methane is also a pollutant. As is anything, yes anything, in large quantities. If global warming is not a product of human society then regulating CO2 emissions is like regulating volcanic eruptions. An excercise is stupidity.

The argument that something must be done now before it’s too late, we haven’t time to be absolutely sure of the evidence… is basically what Justice Stephens has based his legal argument upon.

Something else that bothers me is the fact that water, H2O, is also a greehouse gas, but is it a pollutant?