Click here for SFR on MySpace

Monday, June 26, 2006

Friday night several of us went to Coyote's rooftop cantina to celebrate SFR writer Nate's birthday (his 27th or 28th, I believe). It was a very warm and lively Friday summer night in Santa Fe and I officially do not like mojitos.
Saturday night, many of the same crowd (minus one Republican who I will not name) went to see An Inconvenient Truth, which was actually quite good (and sold out), although I don't think it's a very good title. Pretty amazing, though, that Al Gore talking about global warming for an hour and a half could be interesting. Ultimately it was pretty depressing. I know Gore said one shouldn't go from doing nothing to despair without stopping in the middle to at least try to make a difference, but it was hard to feel very hopeful about the future after seeing that movie. And I really could have done without the trailer to World Trade Center, although showing it did manage to silence the theater completely.
At any rate, on the global warming tip, The Supreme Court will hear a case on whether the EPA should regulate greenhouse gasses, and here's what New Mexico AG Patsy Madrid had to see on that decision:

The United States Supreme Court today agreed to review the decision of a federal appeals court involving the refusal of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for motor vehicles.
“I am pleased the United States Supreme Court will hear this vital case. The significance of global warming cannot be dismissed. When you have an agency that is tasked with protecting the environment refuse to do that job, we have a problem that must be remedied. We need the EPA to do their job now, before it is too late,” Attorney General Madrid said.
The EPA issued two rulings in August 2003 declaring that the agency did not have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. These rulings contradict earlier testimony and statements made by the EPA to Congress in 1998, 1999 and 2000, which indicated that the agency did have the legal power to regulate such emissions.
A petition was filed in the United States Court of Appeals by 12 states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia. Three cities, Baltimore, New York City and Philadelphia, filed a separate challenge against EPA at the same time. A third legal challenge by numerous environmental groups, including Bluewater Network, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Center for Technology Assessment, 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 the US Public Interest Research Group, was filed as well.
In July 2005, the federal appeals court by a 2-1 vote allowed the EPA’s ruling to stand. In March 2005 the coalition of states, cities and environmental groups filed the cert petition with the United States Supreme Court.

I still maintain that one of the big problems with getting people to deal with global warming is its name. Global warming just doesn't sound scary. Global Sweat Death, on the other hand, has a certain ring to it.
Seriously, I am buying renewable light bulbs the next time I go to the store and saving up for an electric car and finding out if we can power SFR on wind power. I mean, seriously, have you read this?