WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday sharply debated an environmental challenge to the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the greenhouse gases that are believed to cause global warming.
At issue is whether a dozen “blue states,” led by California and Massachusetts, can spur federal regulators to limit vehicle emissions.
The court’s decision could also determine the fate of a California law that requires cleaner-burning cars and trucks by 2009.
The states and several environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency two years ago, arguing that it had ignored the Clean Air Act’s requirement to regulate “any air pollutant” likely to endanger public health or welfare.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could trigger an environmental catastrophe, Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General James Milkey told the justices, comparing it to “lighting a fuse on a bomb.”
“Now is not the time” to limit tailpipe emissions “in light of the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding climate change,” responded Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre. He insisted that greenhouse gases are not “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and urged the court to throw out the lawsuit.
During the hourlong argument, the justices sounded as though they were closely split.
The outcome will probably turn on the vote of centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy. He did not tip his hand during Wednesday’s session.
Much of Wednesday’s argument focused on whether the states had “standing” to challenge the government’s policy. To have standing, plaintiffs must show they have suffered a specific injury or harm.
Milkey said the states maintain that global warming will cause the polar ice caps to melt, raising sea levels and damaging coastal regions.
But Garre said the states could not prove that reducing auto emissions will spare their coasts. He noted that U.S. cars and trucks produce about 6 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases and argued that requiring more fuel efficient cars will not make much difference.
Kennedy probed the standing issue with lawyers from both sides, but avoided the skeptical questioning from the competing wings of the court.
The justices have at least three options before them.
They could throw out the lawsuit, agreeing that the states lack standing. They could rule that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, but leave it to the administration to decide on whether new auto regulations are required. Or, they could rule that the Clean Air Act requires new regulations because there is a consensus among scientists that greenhouse gases are endangering the public’s welfare.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
