Supreme Court Wades into Greenhouse Gas Debate
By
H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP)-The Supreme Court plunged
on Monday into the acrimonious debate over global
warming and whether the government should regulate
"greenhouse'' gases, especially carbon dioxide
from cars. The ruling could be one of the court's
most important ever on the environment.
Spurred by states in a pollution battle with the
Bush administration, the court said it would decide
whether the Environmental Protection Agency is
required under the federal clean air law to treat
carbon dioxide from automobiles as a pollutant
harmful to health.
The
decision could determine how the nation addresses
global warming.
President Bush has rejected calls by environmentalists
and some lawmakers in Congress to regulate carbon
dioxide, the leading heat-trapping "greenhouse''
gas going into the atmosphere. Bush favors voluntary
actions and development of new technologies to
curtail such emissions.
Hot
Topic
The Controversy
* Global
Warming Differences Resolved
* Conflicting
Claims on Global Warming and Why It's All Moot
* Baffled
Scientists Say Less Sunlight Reaching Earth
* Scientists
Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth
* Greenhouse
Gas Hits Record High
* Key
Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates
The Effects
* Seas
to Rise
* Greenland
Melts
* Ground
Collapses
* Glaciers
Disappear
* Allergies
Get Worse
* Animal
DNA Changing
* Animals
Change Behavior
* Rivers
Melt Sooner in Spring
* Increased
Plant Production
* Hurricanes
Get Stronger
* Lakes
Disappear
The Possibilities
* More
Rain but Less Water
* Ice-Free
Arctic Summers
* Overwhelmed
Storm Drains
* Worst
Mass Extinction Ever
* A
Chilled Planet
Strange Solutions
* Space
Ring to Shade Earth
* Longer
Airline Flights
But
a dozen states argued that carbon dioxide and
other heat-trapping chemicals from automobile
tailpipes should be treated as unhealthy pollutants.
They filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the
EPA to curtail such emissions just as it does
cancer-causing lead and chemicals that produce
smog and acid rain.
The
Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take the case
after a divided lower court sided with the administration.
Arguments will be late this year, with a ruling
by next June.
"This
is going to be the first major statement by the
Supreme Court on climate change. ... This is the
whole ball of wax,'' said David Bookbinder, an
attorney for the Sierra Club, one of a number
of environmental groups that joined the states
in their appeal to the high court.
While
the case doesn't specifically involve carbon releases
from power plants, environmentalists said a court
decision declaring carbon dioxide a harmful pollutant
would make it hard for the agency to avoid action
involving power plants which account for 40 percent
or the carbon dioxide released into the air.
Cars and trucks account for about half that amount.
The
EPA said in a statement that the agency "is
confident in its decision'' not to regulate the
chemical under the federal Clean Air Act and plans
to argue its case vigorously before the high court.
Recently,
Bush told reporters he views global warming as
a serious problem and has "a plan to be able
to deal with greenhouse gases'' short of regulating
their use. It includes developing new technologies
for cleaner burning coal, using alternative motor
fuels such as ethanol as substitutes for gasoline
and expanding nuclear power to produce electricity.
Critics
argue that carbon emissions have continued to
increase-though the rate of increase has declined-and
only regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases will stem the amount going into the atmosphere.
"It is encouraging that the high court feels
this case needs to be reviewed,'' said Sen. Jim
Jeffords, I-Vt., who has campaigned in Congress
to regulate carbon dioxide. "It is high time
to stop relying on technicalities and finger pointing
to avoid action on climate change.''
The
states involved, which together account for more
than a third of the car market, say the Clean
Air Act makes clear carbon dioxide is a pollutant
that should be regulated if it poses a danger
to public health and welfare. They argue it does
so by causing a warming of the earth.
The
administration maintains that unlike other chemicals
that must be controlled to ensure healthy air,
carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is not
a dangerous pollutant under the federal law. And,
officials argue, even if it is, the EPA has discretion
over whether to regulate it, considering the economic
costs involved.
The agency should not be required to "embark
on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically
uncertain task of addressing the global issue
of greenhouse gas emissions'' when voluntary ways
to address climate change are available, the administration
argued in its filing with the high court.
While
a federal appeals court sided with the administration,
its ruling was mixed.
One judge said the states and other plaintiffs
had no standing because they had not proven harm.
A second judge said even if the law gave the EPA
authority to regulate carbon dioxide, the agency
was not obligated to do so. A third judge, in
the minority, said the EPA was violating the law
by not regulating the chemical.
In
their appeal, the states maintained the case "goes
to the heart of the EPA's statutory responsibilities
to deal with the most pressing environmental problem
of our time''-the threat of global warming.
Plaintiffs
in the lawsuit were California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
They were joined by a number of cities including
Baltimore, New York City and Washington D.C.,
the Pacific island of America Samoa, the Union
of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, and Friends
of the Earth.
The
case is Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 05-1120