News - EPA must regulate GHG''shttps://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704030047apr03,1,3428513.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
EPA must regulate greenhouse gases
By Michael Hawthorne
Tribune staff reporter
April 3, 2007
In a stinging reprimand of the Bush administration's policy on global warming, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.
The 5-4 ruling rejected the administration's contention that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are not pollutants covered by the landmark law. It also supported the right of 12 states and 13 environmental groups to contest the EPA's inaction in the courts.
Defining greenhouse gases as pollutants gives a significant boost to the movement in Washington and the states to regulate heat-trapping emissions. California and a handful of northeastern states are seeking to adopt limits on tailpipe exhaust from cars and trucks.
The decision also gives momentum to efforts in Congress to adopt national standards that would require cleaner cars and power plants, the top sources of the carbon dioxide that prevents the sun's heat from radiating back into space.
If the EPA still attempts to avoid regulating those emissions, the court ruled, it must prove that greenhouse gases don't cause global warming, contrary to the latest science, or come up with better arguments that are based on the law.
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, which also included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy.
Writing for the dissenters, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said the issue of whether greenhouse gases should be regulated under the law should be left to Congress and the president. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. joined him.
The dissent "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it or the extent of the problem," Roberts wrote.
Most of the experts who study the Earth's climate agree that human activities -- mainly the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels -- are driving up global temperatures. Many believe that if action isn't taken soon to reduce greenhouse gases, or at least slow their growth, the result could be rapidly shifting weather, coastal flooding, prolonged droughts and heat waves.
In January, a United Nations panel of climate scientists said people "very likely" are responsible for rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the problem will last for centuries and that it requires a coordinated international response.
"That EPA would prefer not to regulate greenhouse gases because of some residual uncertainty ... is irrelevant," Stevens wrote in the decision, calling the agency's refusal to act "arbitrary, capricious" and not in accordance with the law.
President Bush, who broke a 2000 campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, acknowledged in his most recent State of the Union speech that global warming is a problem. But his administration has steadfastly opposed efforts to impose mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.
More recently, the administration has vowed to address the problem by increasing the supply of ethanol, which produces slightly fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline, and raising fuel economy standards for cars.
Many experts contend more aggressive action is necessary.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the key issue for the administration was whether the EPA could legally regulate greenhouse gases.
"Now the Supreme Court has settled that matter for us, and we're going to ... analyze it and see where we go from there," Perino said.
Massachusetts and 11 other states, including Illinois, challenged the administration's decision not to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, though the arguments on both sides went well beyond that segment of the economy.
----------
mhawthorne@tribune.com
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune