By Beth Daley, The Boston Globe Staff | April 2, 2007
In a defeat for the Bush administration, the US Supreme Court ruled
Monday that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and ordered federal
environmental officials to re-examine their refusal to limit emissions
of the gases from cars and trucks.
The justices' 5-4 decision did not go as far as to require the US
Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases, such as
carbon dioxide. Rather, the court directed the agency to take a new
look at the gases. If it determines they cause global warming and
therefore human harm, the agency should regulate them under the federal
Clean Air Act, or provide a reasonable explanation why it will not, the
court said.
The case, brought by 12 states and 13 environmental groups and
argued by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, is the high
court's first decision on global warming and is expected to have
far-reaching implications for regulating greenhouse gases in the United
States.
"In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal
to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate
change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
The EPA had argued that the Clean Air Act did not give it authority
to regulate greenhouse gases in part because of "substantial scientific
uncertainty" about its harm to human health and the environment.
The decision comes just two months after the US endorsed a statement
by hundreds of scientists worldwide that concluded that there was a
high degree of certainty that the recent rise in global temperatures
was mostly caused by increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other
heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
"Despite acknowledging that global warming poses serious dangers to
our environment and health, the Bush Administration has done nothing to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions," Massachusetts Attorney General
Martha Coakley said in a statement. "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." The EPA
released a statement saying it is reviewing the decision. "The Bush
Administration has an unparalleled financial, international and
domestic commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions," it said,
adding that the administration is pursuing voluntary efforts to prevent
emissions and has spent over $35 billion on climate change programs --
"more than any other country in the world." Stevens was joined in the
majority by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter
and Anthony Kennedy. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel
Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Roberts wrote that Congress and the executive branch, not the
courts, should address the states' complaints about the EPA's lack of
regulation.
He said his stance "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem."
This is a huge victory for anyone who has a shred of concern for the future of human life on the planet (not to mention a shred of decency) jg
8:45:00 PM 
|
