4.03.2007
Justices Say EPA Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases (NYTimes.com)
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: April 3, 2007
WASHINGTON, April 2 — In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Yesterday’s OpinionGraphic
Yesterday’s Opinion
Audio Back Story With Felicity Barringer (mp3)
Related
Text of the Opinion: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (pdf)
Recent Articles on Global Warming
Gore Warns Congress of ‘Planetary Emergency’ (March 22, 2007)
U.S. Predicting Steady Increase for Emissions (March 3, 2007)
On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to Certainty (Feb. 6, 2007)
Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’ (Feb. 3, 2007)
A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate over Climate (Jan. 1, 2007)
Justices’ First Brush With Global Warming (Nov. 30, 2006)
Readers' Opinions
A Reader Forum
Do rich nations have an obligation to help poorer ones prepare for potential changes caused by global warming?
* Post a Comment
Related
The Climate Divide: Reports From Four Fronts in the War on Warming (April 3, 2007)
The 5-to-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could “avoid taking further action” now was “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.
Beyond the specific context for this case — so-called “tailpipe emissions” from cars and trucks, which account for about one-fourth of the country’s total emissions of heat-trapping gases — the decision is likely to have a broader impact on the debate over government efforts to address global warming.
Court cases around the country had been held up to await the decision in this case. Among them is a challenge to the environmental agency’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, now pending in the federal appeals court here. Individual states, led by California, are also moving aggressively into what they have seen as a regulatory vacuum.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Washington)
Published: April 3, 2007
WASHINGTON, April 2 — In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Yesterday’s OpinionGraphic
Yesterday’s Opinion
Audio Back Story With Felicity Barringer (mp3)
Related
Text of the Opinion: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (pdf)
Recent Articles on Global Warming
Gore Warns Congress of ‘Planetary Emergency’ (March 22, 2007)
U.S. Predicting Steady Increase for Emissions (March 3, 2007)
On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to Certainty (Feb. 6, 2007)
Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’ (Feb. 3, 2007)
A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate over Climate (Jan. 1, 2007)
Justices’ First Brush With Global Warming (Nov. 30, 2006)
Readers' Opinions
A Reader Forum
Do rich nations have an obligation to help poorer ones prepare for potential changes caused by global warming?
* Post a Comment
Related
The Climate Divide: Reports From Four Fronts in the War on Warming (April 3, 2007)
The 5-to-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could “avoid taking further action” now was “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.
Beyond the specific context for this case — so-called “tailpipe emissions” from cars and trucks, which account for about one-fourth of the country’s total emissions of heat-trapping gases — the decision is likely to have a broader impact on the debate over government efforts to address global warming.
Court cases around the country had been held up to await the decision in this case. Among them is a challenge to the environmental agency’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, now pending in the federal appeals court here. Individual states, led by California, are also moving aggressively into what they have seen as a regulatory vacuum.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Washington)
Labels: Climate Change, New York Times, SCOTUS
¶ 19:01
