Supreme Argument on Warming
Today a coalition of states, cities environmental groups and other activist groups filed legal briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court on what may be one of the court’s biggest decisions ever concerning the environment: Does the EPA have the power and the duty to regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming?
A dozen states say yes. Another 10 states side with the EPA in saying no. Not involved on either side on the case: Florida.
“Florida would rather aggressively promote environmental improvement in its air quality by advancing technology, improving regulatory efficiency and creating a more cooperative climate of partnership with industry,’’ Florida Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Anthony DeLuise explained in an e-mail Wednesday.
The states on the plaintiff side of the case argue that the EPA must limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act, because -- as the primary greenhouse gas causing a warming of the earth --- carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The petitioners cited Section 202 of the act, which states that the federal government is to regulate “any air pollutant” that can “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
But the Bush Administration maintains that carbon dioxide, unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to assure healthy air, is not a pollutant. The EPA questioned whether the link between greenhouse gases and global warming is certain enough to justify regulation. And the agency asserted that it has discretion over whether to regulate carbon dioxide or instead work for voluntary reductions.
A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court sided with the administration, but it was a sharply divided ruling. The plaintiffs appealed, and in May the high court agreed to hear the case.
The case is Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120, and oral arguments are expected to be scheduled sometime this winter. In addition to Massachusetts, the states involved are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, 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. Filing friend of the court briefs on the plaintiff side were with the petitioners include: 6 additional states – Arizona, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Delaware – along four former EPA administrators, various climate scientists and Alaska tribal groups.
On the EPA’s side is the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Utility Air Regulatory Group, National Automobile Dealers Association, and 10 states: Michigan, Texas, Indiana, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska and Ohio.






Recent Comments