Oh, well *that* is a "YAY!"...
NYT Link if you can get there...
Editorial
The Court Rules on Warming
Published: April 3, 2007
It would be hard to overstate the importance of
yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court that the
federal government has the authority to regulate the
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by
motor vehicles.
It is a victory for a world whose environment seems
increasingly threatened by climate change. It is a
vindication for states like California that chose not
to wait for the federal government and acted to limit
emissions that contribute to global warming. And it
should feed the growing momentum on Capitol Hill for
mandatory limits on carbon dioxide, the principal
greenhouse gas.
The 5-to-4 ruling was a rebuke to the Bush
administration and its passive approach to the warming
threat. The ruling does not require the government to
regulate greenhouse gases. But it instructs the
Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its
refusal to regulate emissions, urges it to pay
attention to the scientific evidence and says that if
it takes the same stance, it has to come up with
better reasons than its current “laundry list” of
excuses.
The ruling also demolishes President Bush’s main
justification for not acting - his argument that
because the Clean Air Act does not specifically
mention greenhouse gases, the executive branch has no
authority to regulate them. The president has cited
other reasons for not acting, including costs. But his
narrow reading of the Clean Air Act has always been
his ace in the hole.
The court offered a much more “capacious” reading of
the act, as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the
majority. The plaintiffs - 12 states and 13
environmental groups - had argued, and the court
agreed, that while the act does not specifically
mention greenhouse gases, it gives the federal
government clear jurisdiction over “any air pollutant”
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger “public
health or welfare.” This interpretation was first set
forth by Carol Browner, administrator of the E.P.A.
under President Clinton, and remained agency policy
until Mr. Bush reversed it in 2001.
The administration had also argued that the states did
not have standing to sue on this issue because they
could not show that they would be harmed by the
government’s failure to regulate greenhouse gases. The
court ruled that the states have a strong and
legitimate interest in protecting their land and their
citizens against the dangers of climate change and
thus have standing to sue.
The ruling reinforces state efforts in other ways.
California and nearly a dozen other states have
adopted their own regulations requiring lower
greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. These
rules, however, require federal approval, which seemed
unlikely as long as the agency could claim that carbon
dioxide was not a pollutant - a claim it can no longer
make.
The E.P.A. had also argued that reducing emissions
would require it to tighten fuel efficiency standards,
a job assigned by law to the Department of
Transportation. The automakers have made much the same
argument against California’s emissions rules. But the
court said that the E.P.A. could not shirk its
responsibilities just because another department sets
mileage standards. The agency is clearly in for some
serious soul-searching.
The decision was unnervingly close, and some of the
arguments in the dissent, written by Chief Justice
John Roberts Jr., were cause for concern - especially
his comments about the “complexities” of the science
of climate change, which is too close for comfort to
the administration’s party line.
Still, the Supreme Court, for the first time, has said
that global warming is a real and present danger. This
can only encourage those on Capitol Hill and in the
states who are growing increasingly impatient for
aggressive action.
Editorial
The Court Rules on Warming
Published: April 3, 2007
It would be hard to overstate the importance of
yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court that the
federal government has the authority to regulate the
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by
motor vehicles.
It is a victory for a world whose environment seems
increasingly threatened by climate change. It is a
vindication for states like California that chose not
to wait for the federal government and acted to limit
emissions that contribute to global warming. And it
should feed the growing momentum on Capitol Hill for
mandatory limits on carbon dioxide, the principal
greenhouse gas.
The 5-to-4 ruling was a rebuke to the Bush
administration and its passive approach to the warming
threat. The ruling does not require the government to
regulate greenhouse gases. But it instructs the
Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its
refusal to regulate emissions, urges it to pay
attention to the scientific evidence and says that if
it takes the same stance, it has to come up with
better reasons than its current “laundry list” of
excuses.
The ruling also demolishes President Bush’s main
justification for not acting - his argument that
because the Clean Air Act does not specifically
mention greenhouse gases, the executive branch has no
authority to regulate them. The president has cited
other reasons for not acting, including costs. But his
narrow reading of the Clean Air Act has always been
his ace in the hole.
The court offered a much more “capacious” reading of
the act, as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the
majority. The plaintiffs - 12 states and 13
environmental groups - had argued, and the court
agreed, that while the act does not specifically
mention greenhouse gases, it gives the federal
government clear jurisdiction over “any air pollutant”
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger “public
health or welfare.” This interpretation was first set
forth by Carol Browner, administrator of the E.P.A.
under President Clinton, and remained agency policy
until Mr. Bush reversed it in 2001.
The administration had also argued that the states did
not have standing to sue on this issue because they
could not show that they would be harmed by the
government’s failure to regulate greenhouse gases. The
court ruled that the states have a strong and
legitimate interest in protecting their land and their
citizens against the dangers of climate change and
thus have standing to sue.
The ruling reinforces state efforts in other ways.
California and nearly a dozen other states have
adopted their own regulations requiring lower
greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. These
rules, however, require federal approval, which seemed
unlikely as long as the agency could claim that carbon
dioxide was not a pollutant - a claim it can no longer
make.
The E.P.A. had also argued that reducing emissions
would require it to tighten fuel efficiency standards,
a job assigned by law to the Department of
Transportation. The automakers have made much the same
argument against California’s emissions rules. But the
court said that the E.P.A. could not shirk its
responsibilities just because another department sets
mileage standards. The agency is clearly in for some
serious soul-searching.
The decision was unnervingly close, and some of the
arguments in the dissent, written by Chief Justice
John Roberts Jr., were cause for concern - especially
his comments about the “complexities” of the science
of climate change, which is too close for comfort to
the administration’s party line.
Still, the Supreme Court, for the first time, has said
that global warming is a real and present danger. This
can only encourage those on Capitol Hill and in the
states who are growing increasingly impatient for
aggressive action.