Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments on Massachusettes v. EPA, a global warming case. A group of states including Massachusettes and New York are suing the EPA for failing to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, owing to the fact that CO2, through a series of physical proceses, causes atmospheric and oceanic warming, higher ocean water levels, and land loss to the states. They say the EPA's interpretation of the standard giving it authority to regulate is impermissibly inconsistent because other compounds such as methane and certain sulfur compounds are classified as air pollutants, while CO2 is not.

The basic argument of the EPA is that the harm is not caused in the air, but elsewhere. Or perhaps, more to the point, that global warming itself is not literally an "air pollution agent." Scalia retorted that sulfer compounds responsible for acid rain would then fail the same test. However, it seems that there was separate legislation under the Clean Air Act that addressed sulfur. My thought on this is that it at least sheds light on the thinking of congress at the time, that something in the air that indirectly causes harm can still be regulated.

Here's the transcript, it's worth a read:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05-1120.pdf

MR. MILKEY (to Scalia): Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere.

This is certainly not an example of an obvious case. I'm not going to try and impinge the integrity of any of the justices or say that they have any particular slant in this case, as they all acted in a very principled manner. In fact, whenever I read SC breifs, I always come out very impressed with Scalia's performance (and humor), in spite of what many of my compatriots might say about him.

This issue may ultimately be moot as we have a Democratic congress coming in soon that seems intent on enacting climate change legislation. In fact, this case is really only refereeing the greater political battle going on over climate change. It deals largely with questions of standing, authority, and administrative minutae.

More later on whether I support cap-n-trade or carbon tax.

A note about US troop deployment. Currently, there are 145,000 US troops deployed in Iraq. Troops levels in Afghanistan seem to be at around 40,000. That is 32,000 NATO troops, of which 12,000 are US, and 8,000 US troops under US command. Iraq and Afghanistan also happen to have similar population sizes at around 29 million.

At first glance, it seems that to achieve an efficient allocation of troops, the marginal utility of moving a troop between the two nations should be zero, that is, the marginal utilities of adding a troop to either one should be equal. This analysis would seem to imply a redeployment in Iraq, to a more defensive position, coupled with the transfer of, say, 20,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

However, one must account for risk-aversion in national priorities. If we try to divide our forces between two nations, there is a not small probability that we will fail in both. If we focus only on one, then the probability of double failure drops dramatically. I'd imagine many people would prefer one sure thing to a double failure, especially as the situation in Iraq looks increasingly hopeless, while the situation in Afghanistan, though slipping, is within our capability to repair. This logic could justify an even larger troop tranfer.

Barring a large increase NATO troops levels, this could be the last best choice.

My prediction, and this might be clouded by my preferred outcome:

House: Dems take control. This is kind of a no brainer. I'm not sure by how much, it doesn't really matter.

Senate: We go 50-50. Dems pick up Ohio, Pennsylvania, Montana, Missouri, and Virginia. Republicans hold Rhode Island and Tennessee. The result, King Chaffee.

As the only Republican to vote agains the Iraq war, Chaffee seems like a good independent man. See The Washington Note for lots of info on him. I predict he may even go true Independent once elected. Though, had he done it before the election, he would have been a shoe in. I guess he made the wrong call early on.

I saw Barak Obama speak at a Deval Patrick rally here in Boston the other day. I must say, he's a very charismatic man. He knows how to work, nay milk, a crowd. This rally was mostly young people, and knowing that, he touched upon issues important to us. He worked in his book, The Audacity of Hope, talking about how difficult it is to go into civics, given how easy it is to concentrate only on your own happiness. Much like entrepreneurship, the risk and job insecurity drives most people away. He also discussed energy dependence and the importance of alternative and renewable energy sources. I'm guessing he has picked up on Tom Freidman's hankering for a presidential call-to-arms on renewable energy and deemed it a good idea.

As for an '08 run, I say he could do it. Presidential politics in this country is a strange but simplistic game. He's got the charisma. If he can fend of accusations of being inexperienced, then he should be golden. I think people want a black president and are ready to vote accordingly. Some say his brief congressional record could be a boon. I would say it is at best neutral.

Also, I saw mentioned a theory on a Democratic takeover of Congress. It goes that, if given control, they probably wont make Iraq too much better. They will certainly get the troops out of harms way, but as for what will happen to the Iraqi state and people, it's anyone's guess. The big downside though, is that they will end up having to share responsibility for what happens in Iraq until the '08 election. I doubt this is a good reason for Republicans to actively try to lose Congress, but it is certainly a reason not to be dissapointed if it happens.

Full Steam Ahead. I love that new slogan. It's so idiotically brilliant, I can't take it.