Can the Supreme Court make the EPA regulate carbon dioxide

The substantive issue can be framed several different ways, here are two:
1) Does the EPA have the power to regulate carbon dioxide?

2) Is carbon dioxide a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act?

However, the more fundamental issue is whether the parties suing the EPA even have the "standing" (or the right) to sue. I'm not going to bore everyone with a dissertation on Administrative law or Constitutional law...but....To have standing a suing party must be able to show there is a specific harm and they (the suing party) where harmed. The difficult argument that the plaintiffs are trying to argue is that EPA's failure to regulate carbon dioxide emissions has harmed their environment (the environment in which the parties live not the environment generally). Basically, the plaintiff is going to have to show that BUT FOR the failure of the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide some harm would not have happened. I think this is a tall order for the plaintiffs, but not impossible.

Even if the Plaintiffs are able to show standing (like I said hard but not impossible). I think it will be hard for the Supreme Court to make the EPA effectively regulate carbon dioxide. The Court is not in business of making regulations, they can tell the EPA to go regulate but the EPA can then make up what ever regulations its wants.

Personally, I think this law suit is mainly a lobbying tool. The best option is to have Congress change the Clean Air Act to explicitly define carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Also, Congress doesn't like it when the Supreme Court steps on its toes. But again this is just my opinion.

Big PhRMA is at it again

I guess the saying "you get what you pay for," is really true. Yesterday Oxfam America came out with one of its great Briefing Papers entitled Patents vs. Patients.

Last year I wrote a Student Note (its really long and boring but here is the link if you want to read it) for my Law Review looking at how the US is pressuring smaller, underdeveloped countries into adopting TRIPS-Plus intellectual property laws. The US uses the Trade Representative (USTR) to implement these policies. A couple of the tools the USTR uses to accomplish this are 1) the use of 'Section 301' watch lists and 2) Bi-lateral trade agreements. I'll address the later first. These bi-lateral trade agreements are done just between the US and the target country, completely by-passing the WTO. Most of the time the target country desparetly needs the agreement to break into the US market. The USTR knows how valuable the US market place is and can totally shut out smaller developing countries. Because of the pharamceutical industries massive lobbying effort and the number of former pharamceutical executives now advising the USTR, the USTR always includes as part of a FTA provisions requiring the target country to adopt very strict IP laws. This can restrict a countries rights under the Doha Agreement (which allows a country to basically obtain a compulsory license when facing a public health emergency). The Section 301 watch lists are another way the USTR pressures countries to adopt IP laws more restrictive than TRIPS or face sanctions for the US.

Now it appears that the pharmaceutical industry isn't happy with the results they have gotten from this process in India. India did change its IP laws to conform with TRIPS, and now Novartis is sueing because they aren't happy with those laws. The problem is that most of Africa is facing a public health crisis with AIDS, however those countries don't have the capacity to manufacture their own drugs so they look to countries like India to get affordable drugs. So if Novartis wins the India export industry to Africa might be shut off. Thereby further shutting off use of the already under used Doha Agreement.

My party has been hijacked....

So I've had a week to think about last Tuesday's election (I know that's an eternity in blogotime) and I think its pretty darn amazing. The country let it be known that we aren't happy. There will be some changes (hopefully for the better...only time will tell), but these changes are happening calmly and orderly, there are no tanks in the streets and civil war has not broken out! We do really live in a great nation...no matter how misguided our leaders (and I'm talking about both sides of aisle) can be at times.

Okay...that being said...I am going to come out...I'm a Republican (or at least I thought I was). I'm actually happy about the change in Congress and I voted for more Democrats than Republicans, but what happened to my party? What happened to Republicans being the party of spending wisely, and keeping Big Brother out of our lives? When did we become the party of legislating morality or spending Billions upon Billions on a war that is doing nothing more than putting our brave men and women in uniform in harms way and making our country less safe? Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? Maybe if our Commander-in-Chief had actually gone to Vietnam he would've thought twice before starting this war.

So bring on something new and for the Republicans, they better hope Rudy wins the nomination for president. :)

Okay...I'm stepping down from my soap box now.

Vote Vote Vote!!!!!

Tomorrow is a big day! Its more important than most people think, its the day where we (the people) can exercise our right to choose those who govern us.

In the last mid-term election the voter turn out was aweful, only 37% of the population voted. This election is pivotal, its a chance for us to make our views known. Its our chance to either give our stamp of approval for what is going on in government OR its a chance for us to show our displeasure with what is happening.

Most people in the world don't have this opportunity, and its sad to see the majority of Americans not voting and taking this right for granted.