What I realized as I was watching and listening throughout the day, is that this is not some science-fiction post-apocalyptic fantasy we are discussing. This is real life. This is our world at stake.

Global warming is so vast that it is incredibly difficult to imagine what our world would be like if we don’t take enough action. And yet all those sci-fi novels have provided glimspes of what might happen. I have been working on climate issues for several years now, I understand what’s going on and what is at stake, but on Saturday it became profoundly real for me.

We need to make sure that the public understands that this is not just a theory or a possibility. They need to understand what is happening and what is likely to continue to happen before things improve. This is real and it is scary. But it is not inevitable yet. We must take action to ensure that.

Despite the landmark nature of the case, I am not sure how much of an impact the ruling will have either way. The debate in the Court isn’t about the veracity of the scientific consensus on the link between CO2 and global warming, but is instead a nuanced argument about the meaning of “air pollution” in the Clean Air Act of 1970.

Considering this legislation was written long before global warming was a pressing political issue, it is no surprise that the debate in the Supreme Court is one of semantics. The implications are clear: we need a Global Warming Act of 200x, one that addresses the nearly indisputible relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Legislation that treats carbon not as an enemy or a friend, but as a natural resource subject to best management practices, much in the same way we view the management of our water and soil resources. Such legislation must take into account the latent economic potential of a carbon management services sector, thereby allowing innovation and market forces to flourish within the context of a favorable legal and political climate.

Some fun highlights (Mr. Garre = EPA guy):

p 37
JUSTICE SOUTER: Why is that showing — and I agree with, by the way, with the Chief’s suggestion a moment ago, life is not, or physics are not so simple as to assume that there’s going to be a be a direct two and a half percent reduction of coastline for a two and a half percent reduction from the 6 percent.
But isn’t it intuitively reasonable to suppose that with some reduction of the greenhouse gases, there will be some reduction of the ensuing damage or the ensuing climate change which causes the damage? Isn’t that fair?
MR. GARRE: I don’t think that it is fair, Your Honor. I don’t want to pretend to be an expert on global climate change. But the one thing I can say is from the materials I looked at is that this an extraordinarily complex area of science. I’m not aware of any studies available that would suggest that the regulation of that minuscule fraction of greenhouse gas emissions would have any effect whatsoever on the global — -
JUSTICE SOUTER: But do you have any –
JUSTICE BREYER: Suppose others cooperate? Suppose…before you know it, they decide any one of 15 things, each of which has an impact, and lo and behold, Cape Cod is saved. Now why is it unreasonable? Why is it unreasonable to go to an agency and say now you do your part, which is 6 percent, and now we’re going to go to a different agency like NHTSA and we’re going to ask them too, and we’re going to go to your electricity regulation program, and coal. And there are like not a million things that have to be done, maybe there are only seven. But by the time we get those seven things done, we’ll make a big difference. Now what is it in the law that says that somehow a person cannot go to an agency and say we want you to do your part? Would you be up here saying the same thing if we’re trying to regulate child pornography, and it turns out that anyone with a computer can get pornography elsewhere? I don’t think so.
…
JUSTICE BREYER: So they couldn’t have gone in and asked for ozone regulations, because that requires other countries? Or what about dumping heavy metals in the sea, and as the sea gets polluted because of what other countries do, but EPA tried to regulate that. Acid rain they tried to regulate. You’re saying there is no standing to ask for any of that.

p 42
I got the impression that Congress thought that the administrator had a duty to make a judgment when there was enough evidence out there that people were concerned about it and so forth, that there would
be a duty there, but you think not?
MR. GARRE: That’s not the agency’s interpretation.

p 51
MR. GARRE:I think the agency’s conclusion was Congress had not authorized it to undertake the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to address global climate change and that, even if it had, that authority should not be exercised.