The intersection of scale, science, and law in Massachusetts v. EPA

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Justice Scalia: But I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call “air” is endangering health.…[Y]our assertion is that after the pollution leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming. Mr. Milkey: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere. Justice Scalia: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter). Justice Scalia: That's why I don't want to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth. The above exchange occurred between Justice Scalia and James Milkey, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, during the oral argument in Massachusetts v. EPA, the first case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on governmental regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. It not only illustrates the complexities of judicial engagement with the science of global warming but also provides a window into one of the greatest obstacles to effective regulatory approaches to the problem of climate change, which the Obama administration must grapple with as it embarks upon its ambitious climate and energy initiatives. Namely, greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts are foundationally multiscalar; they range from the most individual to global levels. Referencing climate change as a multiscalar problem, however, only serves as a starting point for further discussion. “Scale” is a complex and contested concept in both the geography and the ecology literatures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationAdjudicating Climate Change
Subtitle of host publicationState, National, and International Approaches
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages129-144
Number of pages16
ISBN (Electronic)9780511596766
ISBN (Print)9780521879705
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2009

Fingerprint

justice
Law
air
science
pollutant
climate change
humor
honor
assistant
ecology
Supreme Court
climate
geography
energy
regulation
health

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Osofsky, H. M. (2009). The intersection of scale, science, and law in Massachusetts v. EPA. In Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches (pp. 129-144). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596766.008
Osofsky, Hari M. / The intersection of scale, science, and law in Massachusetts v. EPA. Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches. Cambridge University Press, 2009. pp. 129-144
@inbook{5efc209cac2b496990ed997f098bc520,
title = "The intersection of scale, science, and law in Massachusetts v. EPA",
abstract = "INTRODUCTION Justice Scalia: But I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call “air” is endangering health.…[Y]our assertion is that after the pollution leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming. Mr. Milkey: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere. Justice Scalia: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter). Justice Scalia: That's why I don't want to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth. The above exchange occurred between Justice Scalia and James Milkey, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, during the oral argument in Massachusetts v. EPA, the first case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on governmental regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. It not only illustrates the complexities of judicial engagement with the science of global warming but also provides a window into one of the greatest obstacles to effective regulatory approaches to the problem of climate change, which the Obama administration must grapple with as it embarks upon its ambitious climate and energy initiatives. Namely, greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts are foundationally multiscalar; they range from the most individual to global levels. Referencing climate change as a multiscalar problem, however, only serves as a starting point for further discussion. “Scale” is a complex and contested concept in both the geography and the ecology literatures.",
author = "Osofsky, {Hari M.}",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9780511596766.008",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780521879705",
pages = "129--144",
booktitle = "Adjudicating Climate Change",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Osofsky, HM 2009, The intersection of scale, science, and law in Massachusetts v. EPA. in Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches. Cambridge University Press, pp. 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596766.008

The intersection of scale, science, and law in Massachusetts v. EPA. / Osofsky, Hari M.

Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches. Cambridge University Press, 2009. p. 129-144.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - The intersection of scale, science, and law in Massachusetts v. EPA

AU - Osofsky, Hari M.

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - INTRODUCTION Justice Scalia: But I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call “air” is endangering health.…[Y]our assertion is that after the pollution leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming. Mr. Milkey: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere. Justice Scalia: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter). Justice Scalia: That's why I don't want to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth. The above exchange occurred between Justice Scalia and James Milkey, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, during the oral argument in Massachusetts v. EPA, the first case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on governmental regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. It not only illustrates the complexities of judicial engagement with the science of global warming but also provides a window into one of the greatest obstacles to effective regulatory approaches to the problem of climate change, which the Obama administration must grapple with as it embarks upon its ambitious climate and energy initiatives. Namely, greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts are foundationally multiscalar; they range from the most individual to global levels. Referencing climate change as a multiscalar problem, however, only serves as a starting point for further discussion. “Scale” is a complex and contested concept in both the geography and the ecology literatures.

AB - INTRODUCTION Justice Scalia: But I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call “air” is endangering health.…[Y]our assertion is that after the pollution leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming. Mr. Milkey: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere. Justice Scalia: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter). Justice Scalia: That's why I don't want to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth. The above exchange occurred between Justice Scalia and James Milkey, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, during the oral argument in Massachusetts v. EPA, the first case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on governmental regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. It not only illustrates the complexities of judicial engagement with the science of global warming but also provides a window into one of the greatest obstacles to effective regulatory approaches to the problem of climate change, which the Obama administration must grapple with as it embarks upon its ambitious climate and energy initiatives. Namely, greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts are foundationally multiscalar; they range from the most individual to global levels. Referencing climate change as a multiscalar problem, however, only serves as a starting point for further discussion. “Scale” is a complex and contested concept in both the geography and the ecology literatures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870036249&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870036249&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9780511596766.008

DO - 10.1017/CBO9780511596766.008

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84870036249

SN - 9780521879705

SP - 129

EP - 144

BT - Adjudicating Climate Change

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -

Osofsky HM. The intersection of scale, science, and law in Massachusetts v. EPA. In Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches. Cambridge University Press. 2009. p. 129-144 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596766.008