What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
4 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Highly recommended reading.
- catchblue22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To me the EPA's case seems weak. Some highlights:
They argue that the rest of the world emits far more greenhouse gases than America, so any reduction by America wouldn't have a significant impact on America and would therefore be pointless. They also label as speculative predictions that restrictions on carbon emissions will spur technical innovation in efficiency. They are basically saying anything we do will be ineffective, so we shouldn't do anything at all. I find that highly speculative.
There is the usual argument about uncertainty in the science. However I believe that the uncertainty arguments were dealt with very well by the brief from the scientists.
I also noticed a few references to case law involving the Brown and Williamson cigarette company (Brown and Williamson shows up 12 times in the document). It is interesting how these lawyers for the EPA are so familiar with cigarette company case law. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thank you very much for this post. Digging it for your work on getting real information out to the public.
It would also be interesting to see the briefing presented by the EPA on this case, so folks can see both sides of the story. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here is the brief filed by the EPA.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/06-07/05-1120respondents2.pdf
