Supreme Court Rebukes Bush On Global Warming Case
Apr 2nd, 2007 | 18 responses
In a blow to the Bush administration and those who’ve dismissed global warming as just a bunch of ideological gobbledygook, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration in what is called the first case involving this issue and rebuked it for not doing enough on global warming.
The court’s decision was not a whoppingly huge one — but it was a clear slap and rebuke by enough members of the court. The question: will the Bush administration now act on the issue or continue to downplay it or drag its heels? ABC News:
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.”
Global warming is an issue of increasing concern — not just to Democrats, or to Oscar-winning former Vice President Al Gore. An increasing number of Republicans have now begun to take up the issue as well. Yet, to listen to some talk show hosts and pundits, it’s only a “liberal” issue… a statement that is no longer accurate. AFP reports:
The Republican administration of US President George W. Bush has fiercely opposed any imposition of binding greenhouse limits on the nation’s industry.Environmentalists have alleged that since Bush came to office in 2001 his administration has ignored and tried to hide looming evidence of global warming and the key role of human activity in climate change.
As the issue has come to the fore in the US, the White House earlier this year issued a rare open letter defending Bush’s record on climate change, rejecting criticisms that he has only recently awakened to the problem.
Monday’s ruling was immediately hailed by environmental campaigners which has been fighting for greater regulations in a nation which accounts for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.
And what does it mean? It’s likely to mean (more) political complications for an already beset Bush administration that on this issue is not only at odds with many scientists and the bulk of Americans, but at odds with most experts and nations in Europe and other parts of the world. The San Francisco Chronicle:
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act puts the Bush administration in a quandary.Either it must start to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant, an action it has resisted for six years. Or the EPA must state publicly that greenhouse gases do not threaten human health or welfare, a view rejected by most climate scientists, including the agency’s own researchers.
The administration could drag its heels on a decision, hoping to run out the clock until President Bush leaves office. But lawmakers say the ruling will increase pressure on Congress to pass economy-wide limits on greenhouse gases to avoid a patchwork of state rules and EPA regulations.
The ruling “provides another compelling reason why Congress must enact, and the president must sign, comprehensive climate change legislation,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., who is drafting a bill.
The ruling in one of the most important environmental cases to reach the Supreme Court marked the first high court decision in a case involving global warming.President George W. Bush has opposed mandatory controls on greenhouse gases as harmful to the U.S. economy, and the administration instead has called for voluntary programs.
In 2003, the EPA refused to regulate the emissions, saying it lacked the power to do so. Even if it had the power, the EPA said it would be unwise to do it and would impair Bush’s ability to negotiate with developing nations to cut emissions.
The states and environmental groups that brought the lawsuit hailed the ruling.
“As a result of today’s landmark ruling, EPA can no longer hide behind the fiction that it lacks any regulatory authority to address the problem of global warming,” Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said.
The Financial Times adds this valuable perspective:
The case, Massachusetts v EPA, tested only the legal authority of the EPA to regulate emissions – not whether or not it is good policy to do so. The 5-4 ruling does not necessarily mean the agency will reverse its position. Agency officials will simply be forced to justify their choice under the law.Still, the ruling will increase pressure on the administration to change its long-held opposition to mandatory limits on carbon emissions and is a setback for both US carmakers and coal-fired power plants.
The decision comes as the politics of global warming are rapidly changing, both in Congress and in the US business community. The Democrat victory in congressional elections could tip the balance in Congress towards new regulation of emissions, with several longstanding foes of regulation appearing to moderate their opposition. There are six bills before Congress to tackle carbon emissions, either by setting up an economy-wide cap and trade system or by regulating specific polluters such as vehicle and power plants.
President George W Bush in January announced plans to tighten corporate average fuel economy standards – Cafe – by 4 per cent a year for the next decade. But in a recent congressional hearing, the chiefs of the big three carmakers opposed tighter targets while accepting general, economy-wide caps on carbon pollution that did not target “tailpipe emissions�.
“The Supreme Court has reaffirmed what we have been saying all along: the Clean Air Act gives EPA authority to fight global warming,� said Howard Fox, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice.
The court’s decision to allow Massachusetts to bring the case is also a victory for environmentalists, since it could give them power to challenge other environmental regulations.
In other words: stay tuned…there is more to come.
Bush could tilt the balance by getting some more conservative Supreme Court justices on the bench over the next two years, but that seems increasingly unlikely given his diminishing clout with Congress — and not just among Democrats but among some Republicans (particularly those who have to face increasingly angry voters in 2008).
One result of this ruling: it’ll be harder for critics of global warming to dismiss concerns as just part of a “tree hugging” agenda. In fact, those who are concerned over the issue far outnumber those who dismiss it.
And now a winning majority of the Supreme Court could be considered part of those who are concerned.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
Is Global Warming An Over hyped Threat To The Environment?
GLOBAL WARMING – PROS AND CONS
Global Warming’s Impact-A Pro Con Article
Sierra Club Global Warming
Stop Global Warming.Org
Global Warming International Center
MUST READ: Legal blogger Orin Kerr’s post. Part of it:
The Supreme Court handed down its decision in the “global warming” case, Massachusetts v. EPA, and it looks like a significant victory for environmental interests. Stevens managed to keep Kennedy on board, so it was a 5-4 ruling that will make the EPA go back and reconsider the petition to regulate greenhouse gases.
Read it in full.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “Supreme Court Rebukes Bush On Global Warming Case”
Joe: okay, you’re excited, but don’t get carried away. I, in my admittedly cursory reading of the various accounts of this decision, think all that has happened is the Court said, contrary to Bush’s assertions, that the states can bring this suit and the EPA isn’t forced to sit and do nothing. This was simply a dispute over jurisdiction and standing… whether the EPA and the states had any. There wasn’t any order to do anything. Per one quote from the ABC story, “EPA could still decide not to regulate carbon dioxide…” Per the decision, the “laundry list” of reasons (the government) has given for declining to do so are insufficient”.. which means all we’re going to see is Bush/EPA coming up with another list of reasons to justify their inaction on greenhouse gases.
Which, by the way, suits me fine. The alarmists will scream and sue, the lawsuit will take a while to work its way through the courts, maybe Bush wins, maybe he loses in which case, we’ll repeat the process. And eventually, the world will wise up to the lunatics who are running around claiming that we’re all going to die if we don’t listen to them.
Funny isn’t it, that so many of those who pooh-pooh the terrorist threat are so sure we need to take global warming seriously… even though they have less proof of the dangers from global warming than do those who fear terrorists.
I’m waiting for the supreme court to release their the source code for their computer models.
[...] Original post by Joe Gandelman [...]
To Steve’s point: it’s a heckuva lot more likely that we’ll be nuked by the loony mullahs from Iran in the next 10 years than it is we’ll have an environmental issue of significant consequence in the next 25.
My definition of moderate is to address threats in priority order, regardless of who’s glamorizing this or that pet cause.
Sorry folks. It’s getting old everytime you disagee with a post to throw out the “you’re not a moderate” charge or insinuation. I linked to and quoted a LOT of stories so if I was breathless or excited about the ruling I don’t quite think I am alone. Write to all the news services and newspapers and tell them that they’re not moderates for considering this ruling a significant one. I’m at the point where I simply won’t respond in comments on posts where people start with the moderate rant. This site wasn’t started so I could get permission to be a moderate and anyone who reads polls will find that quite a few moderates and independents consider this an important issue and not just a creation of Al Gore. If that makes some folks consider me not a moderate, then I just guess I’ll have to live with that terrible burden for the rest of my life.
Also, since when do weblogs prioritize stories based on a reader’s agenda? We have a ton of cobloggers here and we each pick and choose what we write on. I don’t contact each person who writes here and say: “You know, that’s not of top priority. You can’t write that.” And some of the things we write about have nothing to do with the news. I never KNEW that other sites in my Center Voices column get a list of stories prioritized by readers so that they can gain acceptance from them over what a moderate is.
Who said anything about you not being a moderate because you got a bit (over)excited about this ruling? Misreading the importance of a given story is a mistake made by many people across the political spectrum…. sometimes, even by humble old me.
I think way too many people and way too much of the press want to jump in and call this a rebuke to Bush (no offense, Joe).
But this was not a ruling on the merits of an EPA set of regulations, or lack thereof, but rather a technical case pivoting on issues of standing, regulatory boundaries, and rule-making obligations.
As another commentator on SCOTUSblog (a must for any SCOTUS junkie like myself) stated:
Well said Joe! I think moderates (left; right; and, center) understand and agree with your reply to earlier posts in this thread.
Radical bloggers, who six months ago were enforcing absolute control over opinion and content on their sites, have lost audience. Some now would like to blend into the middle and have a voice.
Good for them… BUT they must learn that ‘In the Middle’ differing opinions get listened and responded to… not steamrolled or banned.
As one who enjoys a good debate, I wish them well.
Joe, thanks for your thorough post on this. It is significant, and partly because it’s getting so much press. Hard to believe this is still even a debate. When you take carbon from the ground and put it in the air, it increases atmospheric carbon (duh). The levels are much higher than in the 400,000 years for which we have records. Atmospheric carbon levels are always correlated with higher average temperatures. The evidence is unequivocal. Logical even. And the effects, unfortunately, are not 10 or 25 years off. They’re here now, and increasing.
As for terrorists, who the hell is talking about terrorists? Aren’t there enough posts here for those comments?
I was going to say something insightful, but Austin pretty much beat me to it =)
This case is certainly about more than standing, although the creation of ‘special standing’ for states may have repercussions well past our current environmental crisis.
Oh, and I’m not only a SCOTUSblog junkie, but a primary source junkie as well.
As to the whole terrorists vs global warming thing, well I’m afraid you’ve just made an association fallacy.
Glad someone is posting about this Joe, keep up the good work.
I believe that the partisianship is shown in the article becasue it seems to emphasize the impact of the Bush Administration. Since there is only about 18 months left before the next election, the impact of the ruling on the Bush Administration is extremely limit. The is almost no chance that the EPA could propose new regulations and propagate them.
The real question is what will the next administration propose and how will it imlement it. Would an Obama or Clinton Administratino be willing to give up jobs and economic growth to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Will the impact of open borders be considered when trying to comply with new regulations? What will the synergistic effects of a huge environmental program along with an economic recession.
Kevin H,
I don’t see what stevestrum stated as an association fallacy at all (in fact, that’s been done repeatedly by some of the AGW proponents here who argue that everyone who questions any aspect of AGW predictions is characterized as a “denier” and often also painted with guilt by association with Creationists and mercenary researchers.)
What stevestrum was saying is that there are priorities to be set as to national priorities. I think it goes to far to suggest a polarize view where certain people are concerned about global warming and climate change threats while others are concerned about the threat of a terrorist attack, but there is a valid point to be made that we have to prioritize our national interests and deal with them in a way that is proportional to their likelihood of occurrence and significance of impact if they occur.
C Stanley and Kevin H: I wasn’t attempting to make an association fallacy; in fact, I don’t even know how to build one from my post. Nor was I making a point about priorities, although I do agree there ought to be some.
My last paragraph argument, which, judging from the confusion, must not have been made very well, was to point out the inconsistency of many global warming alarmists who accept the allegedly thin support for all things global warming but insist on proof beyond all reasonable doubt with regards to other issues we face today, such as the threats we face from militant Islamic fundamentalism and terorrism. It is rather inconsistent for Gore, for example, to scream ‘where’s the proof, where’s the proof’ on one hand while screaming ‘we have to act, we have to act’ on the other…. especially when the threat we face from terrorism is present day while the threat we supposedly face from global warming is a long time off.
I get you, stevestrum, but the association fallacy would be if you were saying that ALL proponents of AGW theory were also the ones who say that the threat of terrorism isn’t proven. Since you’re now specifically pointing to Gore’s own statements, that’s guilt by evidence; if you were trying to cast doubt on credibility of all global warming alarmists by pointing out that they are wrong in the way that they perceive the threat of terrorism, then that would be an association fallacy. I didn’t think you were trying to make that case and that was what I tried to point out because I think Kevin H read your comment that way. I guess I also misread you or read between the lines with my comment about priorities.
I think your commentary about relative standards of proof is apt. Will those who rail about Bush “lying” about the pre-war intel also complain if it turns out that we make massive investments to counter climate change, and later learn that the consensus scientists were wrong? There is a very valid comparison here because just as science bases theories on probability rather than 100% definitive proof, so were the pre-war decisions made on intelligence data that can prove to be untrue or faulty. We really have to decide in each case, how much uncertainty is acceptable before we decide to make a conclusion and act on it, and we have to realize that if the decision turns out to be faulty then that doesn’t prove that the decision makers were lying or had malicious intent.
Obviously you liberals (you are not moderates) are overjoyed and see this as a tremendous defeat for the Bush administration more than any victory for environmentalism, but take the time to read the 5-4 (hardly unanimous) ruling as well as the dissenting views if you want to really learn more about this.
In the interest of fairness and balance, some new analysis has been posted at SCOTUSblog that argues quite compellingly that this is a major decision, not a technical decision, and will have far-reaching consequences.
I think one of the strongest points made in the new article was:
That is a powerful authority, and over time and across multiple administrations is sure to be enacted upon.
Hmm, interesting. It appears that C Stanley didn’t put in an ‘end emphasis/italics’, and it is affecting all subsequent posts.
Let’s test that.
Shazam!
Did that work?
Yup, CS pretty much hit it on the head how I misread you. There is an association fallacy to be made if you say something to the effect of “Liberals are wrong about terrorism, therefore they are also wrong about global warming,” which was my interpretation of stevesturm’s first short paragraph, but thanks for clearing up your point.
I think however there are very very few liberals on the extreme left who would say that terrorism is not a problem at all. The major difference is in tactics. Should the ‘war on terror’ be fought through law enforcement and sanctions, or military strikes.
Oh, I only managed to catch the end of this debate on the radio, but I think you will be surprised at how it ends…. considering that its NPR.