T Nation


[i]WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration Monday for its inaction on global warming in a decision that could lead to more fuel-efficient cars as early as next year.

The court, in a 5-4 ruling in its first case on climate change, declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under the landmark environment law, and the “laundry list” of reasons it has given for declining to do so are insufficient, the court said.

“A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere,” Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion. “EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.”

The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first case on the subject, with many Republicans as well as Democrats now pressing for action. However, the administration has argued for a voluntary approach rather than new regulation.

The reasoning in the court’s ruling also appears to apply to EPA’s decision not to impose controls on global warming pollution from power plants, a decision that has been challenged separately in court, several environmental lawyers said.

In the short term, the decision boosts California’s and 11 other states’ prospects for gaining EPA approval of their own program to limit tailpipe emissions, beginning with the 2009 model year. Those cars begin appearing in showrooms next year. Emission limits would become stricter each year until 2016.

Automobile makers have said stricter emission limits would be accomplished by increasing fuel-economy standards.

Reacting to the court ruling, the automakers called for an economy-wide approach to global warming, cautioning that no single industry could bear the burden alone.

Monday’s ruling also improved the odds that Congress would take action on comprehensive legislation to reduce global warming, said business groups, environmental advocates and lawmakers. Several measures already have been introduced.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee urged President Bush “to work with Congress to enact a mandatory cap-and-trade proposal and other programs to reduce our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency is studying the court’s ruling.

In the meantime, she defended EPA’s voluntary partnerships to reduce emissions. “These national and international voluntary programs are helping achieve reductions now while saving millions of dollars, as well as providing clean, affordable energy,” Wood said.

Ann R. Klee, who was general counsel at the EPA from 2004 through mid-2006, said the Bush administration’s “options are now considerably more limited.” She said EPA could still decide not to regulate carbon dioxide, but only if it also concluded that such emissions do not contribute to climate change or endanger public health and welfare.

That’s an argument that could be difficult to make given the widespread view among climate scientists that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the principal heat-trapping “greenhouse” gas that, if not contained, will lead to significant warming of the Earth, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.

Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. One way to reduce those emissions is to have more fuel-efficient cars.

In handing an almost-total victory to Massachusetts, 11 other states, three cities and 13 environmental groups that sued the EPA, the court adopted many of their concerns and their belief that taking even limited action concerning new American cars and trucks is better than doing nothing.

The court’s four conservative justices ? Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas ? dissented.

“In many ways, the debate has moved beyond this,” said Chris Miller, director of the global warming campaign for Greenpeace, one of the environmental groups that sued the EPA. “All the front-runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, even the business community, are much further along on this than the Bush administration is.”

Democrats took control of Congress last November. The world’s leading climate scientists reported in February that global warming is “very likely” to be caused by man and is so severe that it will continue for centuries. Former Vice President Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” ? making the case for quick action on climate change ? won an Oscar. Business leaders are saying they are increasingly open to congressional action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, of which carbon dioxide is the largest.

The court had three questions before it.

_Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

_Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

_Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a “laundry list” of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.

The court should simply recognize that dealing with the complaints spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said.

He said his position “involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a separate dissent, said the court should not substitute its judgment in place of the EPA’s, “no matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake.”

Whatever else comes of the decision, “this administration’s legal strategy for doing nothing has been repudiated,” said David Doniger, counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group involved in the case.

Other states that have adopted California’s standards on emissions of greenhouse gases are: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. [/i]


Wow. A fantastically bad decision from the standpoint of the court’s role in policymaking.

What is left of the issue of standing to get into a court? Where is the dispute between parties that has left one of the parties with a concrete legal injury in this case?

This case has little to do with global warming - although I suspect that was the primary driver of the majority’s desire - it has to do with the court’s decision to make another political decision in an area it has no authority to.

“…the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” -Abraham Lincoln

So does this mean my kids can look forward to the EPA “regulating” the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses coming out of their mouths and asses? Might be just the opening .gov needs to whip out that “breathing tax” they’ve been salivating over for so long. Should fit nicely with the biggest tax raise in history just passed by congress, eh?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

This case has little to do with global warming - although I suspect that was the primary driver of the majority’s desire - it has to do with the court’s decision to make another political decision in an area it has no authority to.[/quote]

Agreed, I’m no lawyer but it must be blatantly obvious to anyone on both sides of the that the USSC is way overstepped it’s bounds, and not just in this case, but many in recent history.

I also liked the implicit association between the USSC ruling, the Bush Administrations’ policy, and more fuel-efficient cars and global warming. It was almost implying that the cars wouldn’t be available for sale next year because of the Bush Administration’s policy but that the USSC and EPA are now going to miraculously make it happen and that this will somehow make a dent in GW.

If anything, this will make the EPA much less effective at any job they do.

"Buy the sky and sell the sky and tell the sky and tell the sky;

Don’t fall on me." R.E.M.