EPA must consider regulating carbon dioxide
The U.S. EPA must consider regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, the Supreme Court held today (April 2, 2007) in a landmark decision regarding global climate change and emissions of carbon dioxide from motor vehicles.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Court sided with 11 states and 13 environmental groups that sued U.S. EPA to force the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks.
Arguments in the case centered on the scope of Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, the legitimate ambit of discretionary agency authority, and whether Massachusetts and other state plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens today rejected the EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act does not grant it the authority to issue mandatory regulations addressing climate change—and that even if EPA held that authority, a federal rule would do little to stem any effects from climate change on Massachusetts or the other petitioners, given that U.S. auto emissions only account for about 7 percent of global fossil fuel emissions and about 30 percent of domestic emissions.
“EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” Stevens wrote, concluding that the agency’s actions were “arbitrary, capricious . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
The Stevens’ majority held that sufficient scientific evidence exists to suggest that Massachusetts is already dealing with rising sea levels caused by climate change, a side effect that is only expected to exacerbate as the planet warms. “The risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is real” and warrants granting Massachusetts standing to bring its case against EPA, the Court held. “That these climate-change risks are ‘widely shared’ does not minimize Massachusetts’ interest in the outcome of this litigation,” Stevens added.
Joining him in the majority opinion were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas offered two dissents, one written by Roberts and one by Scalia.
Read the full opinion here 
|
