Recap: LA County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et. al.

Argument recap: http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/argument-recap-now-that-we-all-agree-the-ninth-circuit-was-wrong/#more-156192

 

LA County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et. al.

The Supreme Court is hearing an interesting case today involving the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The case was originally brought to the Supreme Court "to decide whether the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirements apply when someone channels water from one part of a river to another through a concrete channel or similar flood control mechanism" (Analysis by Kevin Russell). However, both parties have since agreed the answer to be no. It seems as if the Supreme Court was not expecting the turn of events that have occurred since granting certiorari. Interestingly enough, in the analysis by Kevin Russell, he states that the Court "likely would not have granted [cert.] to decide standing alone," which is currently what both parties seem to be asking for. Should be interesting to see what happens. 

Taking a Stand Against Doping

After reading an interesting perspective on doping from the Poli Tick'n Pundit, I feel that another angle should be analyzed in reply:

While I am not a cyclist, nor am I very knowledgeable about the world of competitive cycling, I was a competitive swimmer for many years and as such I strongly disagree with this post. While I can see where you are coming from, I would like to believe in a more optimistic view of competitive sports.

Competing at an elite level for many years, I know that the temptations are there. I have seen the careers of some of my close friends end because they were caught doping in some way. I can attest that there is nothing pretty about it. Yes, Lance Armstrong was able to get away with it during his time of competition, but now he is a disgrace. In being striped of all his titles he has essentially accomplished nothing in his entire athletic career. He will be remembered throughout the ages, this is true, but he will be remembered in infamy rather than with admiration and respect.

As an athlete, I could not even begin to think how disgraced and ashamed I would feel if everything I had trained so long and hard for meant nothing.

When an athlete decides to use a performance enhancing drug, they are no longer competing as themselves, but rather as a fake, synthetically enhanced mutation of what they could have been. While they may reap the short-term benefits those achievements do not belong to them, but rather they belong to the drug they were on. When looking back at their career they will see that everything they spent their lives training for has amounted to nothing, and as such, they have amounted to nothing.

As far as I am concerned, anyone using an illegal substance should be banned permanently. At the core of sportsmanship are the morals of honesty, integrity, hard work, and fair play. This is what makes the Olympics the pinnacle and highest honor of an athletes career. This is why athletic events, like the Olympics, have the ability to mend war torn nations and to bring together peoples, under the name of fair play, who have been fighting for years. If we allow for these core principles to be done away with, no matter what level of competition, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We are saying that it is okay to cheat and lie in life and I for one will not allow for these morals to be taught to my children.

Taking a Stand

At this moment, the Earth’s permafrost is melting, yet most people don’t realize the danger this poses. The melting of the permafrost will only lead to a further acceleration in climate change.

Permafrost is known to have gas methane trapped within it. We also know that methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases. As permafrost melts, large quantities of methane will be spewed into the atmosphere, further warming our climate. The continued warming will in turn further melt the permafrost and a positive feedback cycle will ensue.

This week, delegates from nearly 200 countries are meeting in the Qatari capital of Doha to lay the framework for a potential deal that could cut greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of ensuring that world temperatures do not rise more than two degrees above what was recorded in preindustrial times. “Temperatures have already risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit according to the latest report by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”

Talks such as these have been going on for decades. Typically, the talks and the chance for any deal breaks down when rich and poor countries are pitted against each other. The rich countries are trying to ensure that any deal doesn’t affect their economy or industries. The poor countries are looking for help from the rich countries to offset the costs of implementing such emissions controls. Everyone is looking out for their own pocketbook rather than opening their eyes to what is occurring with our planet.

The current talks are further complicated by the fact that delegates are trying to determine whether developed nations will agree to an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, which is a legally binding emission reduction agreement that would be in effect until 2020. While Kyoto once included all industrialized countries except the United States, today there is a chanced that only the European Union, Australia, and some smaller countries would be signatories. These countries combined account for less than 15 percent of global emissions. While their commitment is not insignificant, it is only a drop in the bucket. And the United States’ offer to cut its emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 is still a far cry from cuts needed to stem the tide of climate change. Furthermore, the US offer isn’t even legally binding.

But the United States isn’t the only country at fault here. Developing countries like India and China have failed to make any significant efforts to cut their emissions. They argue that the poverty plaguing their countries necessitates that they focus on building their economies first to improve the standard of living of their citizens. Then they can tackle the environmental threat. But in the meantime, increased emissions will just be the cost of doing business as they try to eliminate their countries’ poverty.

            The question is when will everyone be ready to fully commit. In 2020, when Kyoto expires? Or will it be much later? Despite the evidence that climate change is only worsening and the threat growing, the pressure to finally take this threat seriously and do something is still lacking. Just this week, in conjunction with the Doha meeting, the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations’ weather agency, released its annual report on the effects of climate change. The report highlighted that not only did the world see record-breaking weather events, including droughts affecting huge portions of the United States, Russia, and Europe, and floods affecting west Africa, a chunk of Artic ice, bigger than the United States, melted this year. The rate at which the ice in the region is melting is alarming and clearly illustrates the immediate threat of climate change.         

            Something needs to be done. The proof is there. The delegates in Doha need to act responsibly and commit to cutting emissions. The world needs to make a dent in emissions or the prevalence of droughts, flooding, and ice melt are only going to worsen. The delegates in Doha need to take a stand.