<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>US Supreme Court rebukes Bush on climate
change</title></head><body>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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".</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>m.</div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br>
April 2, 2007<br>
Court Rebukes Administration in Global Warming Case<br>
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental
law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.<br>
<br>
The court's four conservative justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts
and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas --
dissented.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the
court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case.<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The court had three questions before it.<br>
<br>
--Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its
decision?<br>
<br>
--Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe
emissions of greenhouse gases?<br>
<br>
--Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to
the Clean Air Act.<br>
<br>
"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.<br>
<br>
The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that
had grown frustrated by the Bush administration's inaction on global
warming.<br>
<br>
In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a
party has the right to file a lawsuit.<br>
<br>
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.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br>
His position "involves no judgment on whether global warming
exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem," he
said.<br>
<br>
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.</font><br>
<font color="#000000"></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">The case is Massachusetts v. EPA,
05-1120.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
</body>
</html>