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.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.