[Vision2020] US Supreme Court rebukes Bush on climate change

[Mark Solomon]

The Court just ruled that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that can 
be regulated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. (Article below).

An interesting side note is that Idaho is one of the states that 
intervened to support EPA's contention that the agency couldn't do 
anything about greenhouse gases. Your hard earned Idaho tax dollars 
at work. It's time to eliminate the legal slush fund established by 
the legislature to legally pursue "constitutional issues".


m.


April 2, 2007
Court Rebukes Administration in Global Warming Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government 
on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions 
from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the 
Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the 
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental 
law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.

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

Many scientists believe greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere 
at an unprecedented rate, are leading to a warming of the Earth, 
rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.

The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the 
court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case.

"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" 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 greenhouse gases emissions, of which 
carbon dioxide is the largest.

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.

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.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide 
whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," 
Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices 
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the court's 
swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that 
had grown frustrated by the Bush administration's inaction on global 
warming.

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 redress of the kind of 
grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function 
of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts 
said.

His position "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, 
what causes it, or the extent of the problem," he said.

The decision also is expected to boost California's prospects for 
gaining EPA approval of its own program to limit tailpipe emissions 
of greenhouse gases. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on 
environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval 
of standards that are stricter than national norms.

The case is Massachusetts v. EPA, 05-1120.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070402/b6e3e9ae/attachment.html