by Carl Pope (Sierra Club, Executive Director)
Reality Prevails at the High Court: 5-4
Monday, April 02, 2007
Washington, DC -- By a 5-4 ruling the US Supreme Court today ruled that the science of global warming is real, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and that the EPA should regulate it under the Clean Air Act, even if the Bush Administration does not want to do so for political reasons.
The Court's majority ruled, in a case originally brought by the Sierra Club, that the Administration "has offered no reasoned explanation" for its refusal to regulate CO2 as an air pollutant, in spite of the fact that the Clean Air Act specifically provides that any substance which can harm, among other things, "the climate" is an air pollutant.
The decision is incredibly important; it means, among other things, that even if EPA and the Administration try to stonewall regulatory or legislative action, California and the other states which are already moving to regulate CO2 pollution from motor vehicles can quickly move to resolve the legal challenges from the auto industry to those standards. And since states with more than 40% of the North American auto market have adopted such rules, as a practical matter the auto industry is going to have to clean up all its cars, even if Washington continues to dither and delay." http://www.sierraclub.org/carlpope/(bold is mine)
and from the NRDC:
snip
The Court ordered EPA to make a fresh decision on curbing heat-trapping pollution from new cars, SUVs, and trucks – this time relying solely on global warming science and not on illegal excuses for inaction.
snip
The High Court decision is likely to help forge consensus in Congress for new and more comprehensive global warming legislation. “The prospect that EPA will act under today’s Clean Air Act may light a fire under some industries that have been standing in the way,” Doniger said.
NRDC was joined in the suit by 12 states (CA, CT, IL, RI, MA, ME, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT and WA), Baltimore, New York City, Washington, D.C., and numerous other environmental groups and non-profit organizations. Fourteen "friend of the court" briefs were also filed from an array of scientists, former EPA administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, electric power companies, state and local governments, and others.
“We’ve now broken a major legal logjam on this issue, and this will be the year that the political logjam is broken, too,” continued Doniger.
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070402.aspand from environmental defense: a time line
Global Warming: Supreme Court Case
A brief time line of the case Massachusetts et al. v. EPA
Posted on: 11/27/2006
A landmark case before the Supreme Court could have profound effects on efforts to curb man-made greenhouse gases heating up the earth. The case involves pivotal questions about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate global warming pollution under the nation's clean air laws.
The case arose from EPA's denial of a petition that sought emission limits on the global warming pollution released from new motor vehicles. A brief history follows:
1998 - During the Clinton administration, EPA's General Counsel Jonathan Cannon determined that EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
1999 – EPA General Counsel Gary Guzy testifies before Congress that carbon dioxide may be regulated as an air pollutant under the Act.
1999 - Concerned groups petition EPA to set vehicle emissions limits for greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), arguing the gases are pollutants that endanger public health and welfare and must be regulated.
2003 - EPA denies the petition asking it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. It also reverses its previous legal opinions and issues a new opinion by General Counsel Robert Fabricant that EPA is barred from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Environmental Defense and a coalition file a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
2005 - The D.C. Circuit issues a 2-1 judgment in favor of EPA.
2006 - We ask the Supreme Court to hear the case, and on June 26th it agrees.
Aug. 31, 2006 – Petitioners’ opening brief is filed along with numerous amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. Circuit’s decision below.
Nov. 29, 2006 - Oral arguments are scheduled before the Supreme Court.
and a list of the petitioners and respondents:
Key Players
Massachusetts et al. v. EPA
(Case No. 05-1120)
Petitioners: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the states of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, the District of Columbia, American Samoa Government, New York City, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technology Assessment, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Respondents: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, National Automobile Dealers Association, Engine Manufacturers
Association; Truck Manufacturers Association, CO2 Litigation Group; Utility Air Regulatory Group, and the States of Michigan, Texas, North Dakota, Utah, South Dakota, Alaska, Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5623
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
