In either scenario, what kind of political and legal debate would follow?
Well, if protection is offered, environmental groups will file suit calling for suing carbon-emitting companies that violate the Clean Air Act. Then they’ll go back to court to sue the government for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Then a judge will have to say, “Well, will that do anything to improve polar bear habitat or not?” Then there will be a fight over what’s actually causing [the ice to] melt, and whether the climate models predicting deep rates of change are meaningful predictors. Is there apprehension that listing the bear signals acceptance that climate change is caused by humans? Absolutely. The realization has always been that if you list the polar bear, because its range is the entire Arctic, your ability to exploit the Arctic is essentially done. But that’s really only part of it. A much bigger part is that because the assumed nature of the endangerment is greenhouse gas emissions, it would empower groups to sue the government to force the abatement of the ga
Related Questions
- The Bloggers FAQ on Election Law addresses the legal issues regarding blogging about political campaigns. Is it true that new rules limit how I can blog about politics?
- What procedures must law enforcement officers follow to make sure sobriety checkpoints are legal?
- When configuring a scenario step that clicks a link, how does LoadStorm follow the link?
