Bush gets bitten by poodle again

The British government just put out a huge 700 page report titled Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change which warns of an economic catastrophe in the future if we don't take decisive action now to curb greenhouse gas emissions:

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat and it demands an urgent global response. Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5 percent of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20 percent of GDP or more.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair keeps calling for "bold and decisive action" to cut carbon emissions and stem the worst of the temperature rise.

Meanwhile, back in the US, the people continue on with their lives as if nothing is wrong......

Unless we act now ... these consequences, disastrous as they are, will be irreversible. This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime. ~ Tony Blair

Why doesn't that pesky Tony Blair keep his mouth shut?  Maybe it's because he doesn't receive a lot of lobbying money and contributions from the Coal Mining Industry, or Oil and Gas Industries.  Maybe ExxonMobil didn't pay Mr. Blair any money to be a Global Warming Skeptic.

But maybe there's hope on the horizon:

In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will begin oral hearings on what is destined to be the biggest environmental case in its history.  It will determine whether or not the Bush Administration and the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases.

The case had it's beginnings back in 1999, when several environmental groups petitioned the EPA to start regulating the emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide, which are released by burning fossil fuels, and which are primarily responsible for Global Warming.  The groups argued that the gases should be classified as air pollutants that endanger public health and must be regulated under the 1990 Clean Air Act.   In September 2003, the EPA's general counsel, Robert Fabricant, issued a memo saying the Clean Air Act does not authorize the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  The Bush Administration additionally issued a separate legal opinion claiming that global warming emissions were not pollutants, and said that it supported "voluntary" measures to deal with global warming.
Now the environmental groups have sued the EPA, challenging it's decision

The Bush Administration, is being supported by the EPA and Utah, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas and Ohio - are joined by energy industry groups and auto manufacturer associations.

VS

The Plaintiffs who include :New York, California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington D.C., The Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists and U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG).and several environmental groups, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The cities of Baltimore and New York have also filed a separate petition.

So who owns the Supreme Court?  Will it be Big Money and Corporate interests, or the Environment and the Common Good?