The U.S. Supreme Court stepped into the debate on global warming this week, hearing arguments from 12 states that are demanding the federal government set stricter standards on greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles.
We’re not optimistic that the court will rule in favor of the states or even act on the merits of the case. And we’re not sure the court is even the appropriate place to settle the issue.
These states – led by Massachusetts – are taking an aggressive role in trying to curb what many scientists deem a danger to public health because Washington has failed to do so. We’d like to see the new Congress convening in January challenge the Bush administration on the issue.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided in 2003 that it would not regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks because of what it called “substantial scientific uncertainty” about the effects of climate change on public health and the environment.
The case argued before the court on Wednesday was filed in 2003 in Massachusetts by a coalition of 12 states, 13 environmental groups and three large cities, which believe the Earth is warming due to heat-trapping gases caused by human activity like automobile emissions.
The plaintiffs want the EPA to set mandatory limits for auto emissions.
At the heart of the case is whether the EPA is dodging its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from pollutants that could “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The states say that the 1970 Clean Air Act makes carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to regulation because it is harmful to human health.
Bush administration lawyers argued that evidence for global warming is speculative. We hope the justices don’t buy it. The Bush administration has refused to mandate greenhouse emission curbs, claiming it would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy and on carmakers in particular.
The EPA argues that Congress has not given the agency authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
The states say that the Clean Air Act instructs the EPA to regulate “air pollutants.” The Bush administration says the law gives the EPA broad discretion to decide whether to regulate.
Congress and the court should both reject this spurious position and require the EPA to act its name: E for Environment and P for Protection.
