Have you ever wondered what goes on in the Supreme Court? Me neither. But here's the text of the oral arguments presented Wednesday before the Supreme Court. Of course, this is a mere 50-some pages of testimony. Not even close to the written materials provided the court, I'm sure. It's pretty clear that none of the participants are scientists, and it's equally clear that I am not a lawyer - some of the context is lost on me because I know nothing of the cases which each side cites in their support.

As I said in my last entry, the point of the case before the Supreme Court is to try to get the EPA to regulate GHG emissions from vehicles. The best they can hope for is to lower the emissions from the current 6 percent of the global total to 3.5 percent of the current global total emissions. Unfortunately, by the time the current fleet of vehicles would turnover, the amount of growth in emissions from other sectors and certainly from other nations would completely overwhelm that small amount of savings. And even if other emissions didn't change, it's not enough of an impact to make a difference.

Massachusetts is claiming that it's being damaged by global warming - that sea level rises will engulf a large portion of it's coastline (bye bye, Cape Cod) and that's the standing for their suit.

The point of the whole exercise, of course, is to set a precedent. There is a case currently on appeal in the D.C. Circuit court regarding EPA regulating GHGs from power plants, but it has been stayed pending the outcome of the case currently before the Supreme Court.