MONDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Young Voices
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

E-mail a friend

• TOPICS
• Business
• Economy
• Health
• Politics
• Environment

 

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. The Bush Administration and the EPA argued that they do not have the authority to regulate emissions, and even if they did, this was not the right time to do so. However, the court decided not to defer to the government this time, stirring up several important fundamental issues.

First, what is the role of government in protecting the environment? As Milton Friedman would say, government should ensure that one individual's freedom does not hamper another individual's freedom. In this case, my ability to drive a gas-guzzling SUV that emits tons of pollution should not prohibit you and your kids from running in the park without having an asthma attack.

The second issue is that President Bush is not the only person to be blamed. Where was the Clinton administration when they had the opportunity to put these regulations in place? The then Browner led EPA waited until the Fall 2000 elections to consider doing something about emissions, hoping that Gore would be victorious. And when he was not, they attempted (unsuccessfully) to push the issue right before Bush was inaugurated.

The last issue is that the Supreme Court usurped the power of the Congress to decide if and how car emissions should be regulated. It is unfortunate that Congress could not come to this conclusion on their own, most likely because of campaign contributions (on both sides of the aisle) from oil companies and car manufacturers. This hands off attitude has left the American people at the whim of what a handful of appointed legal academics have to say about the science of environmentalism.