Green Gavels
April 2nd, 2007 | Posted in Climate Change, Government, Politics, Responsibility
The Supreme Court ruled today that “the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.” The case was “filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that had grown frustrated by the Bush administration’s inaction on global warming.” This article gives details of the court’s decision, some of which include:
- Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.
- The court had three questions before it:
- Go figure on the last bullet. According to Roberts, his dissenting opinion, “involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem.” Of course not. I’m not saying it should but there’s no surprise that it doesn’t.
1. Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
2. Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
3. 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 that 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 court’s four conservative justices - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - dissented.
The first positive effect of this decision could come out of California. The state is trying to gain approval from the EPA of its own tailpipe emissions limitation program. Progressives must force as much as they can to the Court while a liberal majority exists so the conservatives have more to undo then they can possibly handle if they take over.
Sphere: Related ContentRelated Posts
