The best magazine
Case Raises Core Questions about Regulating Global Warming
The case centers on a Clean Air Act provision that requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate air pollutants that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The plaintiffs?a coalition of 12 U.S. states, three cities, one territory and more than a dozen leading environmental groups?argue that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, factories and power plants are covered by that provision.
The Bush administration says that greenhouse gas emissions are outside the scope of the EPA, claiming that greenhouse gases are not air pollutants and that the EPA has no authority to regulate them. The White House, and its lawyers at the U.S. Justice Department, also argue that even if the Supreme Court decides the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases, that doesn?t mean the agency will be required to exercise its authority over such emissions.
The administration?s argument about the EPA and greenhouse gas emissions echoes President Bush's policy of relying on industry to reduce emissions voluntarily and refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which requires industrial nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to less than 1990 levels by 2012.
EPA Attorneys Cite Economic Burdens, Scientific Uncertainties
Lawyers at the U.S. Justice Department will argue that a solution implemented by one nation can?t solve a global problem. Whatever their source, greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere and circulate around the world, so a single nation that regulates its own emissions "may bear a substantial economic burden but will receive only a small share of any resulting benefit,'' according to papers the Justice Department filed with the Supreme Court. "Countries ? particularly developing countries ? may seek a 'free ride' from expensive regulation self-imposed by other nations.''
The Justice Department lawyers also wrote that the causes of global warming remain a subject of "substantial scientific uncertainties'' -- and they claim the Clean Air Act allows the government to make that determination.
EPA Stance on Global Warming Called Irresponsible
According to the plaintiffs, the position taken by the EPA and its attorneys is irresponsible.
"Global warming is not merely a future threat, but a present deadly reality,'' said a supporting brief submitted by organizations representing mayors, county governments and several U.S. cities. The brief cited a World Health Organization estimate that global warming already accounts for 150,000 deaths annually. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs and most climate change experts argue that scientific evidence of global warming is now irrefutable.
"The EPA position is untenable," said Andrew Dessler, an associate professor of climate science at Texas A&M University, in an interview with the Houston Chronicle. "At the present time it is virtually certain that human emissions are warming the planet. The real question is how much warming we can attribute to emissions, and it's likely that most of the recent warming is due to human activity."
Lawmakers Expected to Take Action, No Matter What Court Decides
Speculation about why the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and how the justices will rule is running rampant. Some experts believe the Court will ignore the environmental aspects of the case and use the ruling as an opportunity to reaffirm constitutional theory and a bright line between state and federal authority. Others believe the Court will find for the plaintiffs, forcing the EPA to assume a strong regulatory role over greenhouse gas emissions and the issue of global warming.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in the case by July 2007. Regardless of the outcome, however, auto manufacturers and other U.S. industries are likely to face increasing pressure from elected officials over greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
California has already toughened its emissions standards, and some other states are considering similar actions, and the new Democrat-led Congress is expected to take action on issues related to global warming. U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who is slated to become the new chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when Congress convenes in January 2007, has promised extensive hearings on global warming under her leadership.
Source: ...