|
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
GOP Ignores Danger of Global Warming
Share and save this post:
Also in Environment
The Many Ways Our Future is a Mess
Michael T. Klare
Major Green Groups Offer Plan to Obama
Kate Sheppard
How to Save Motor City
Marissa Colon-Margolies
Billionaire Fashion Magnate Begins Building Massive Alternative Energy Network
Elizabeth Nash
Why It's Not OK for Palin to 'Drill Baby, Drill'
Silja J.A. Talvi
10 Tips for a Sustainable Thanksgiving
Sarah Newman
Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case that "could be one of the court's most important ever on the environment." The case emerged in 2003 after the EPA rejected a petition calling for the federal government to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases -- most notably, carbon dioxide.
The EPA's general counsel argued in a memo that "[carbon dioxide] and other [greenhouse gases], as such, are not air pollutants," and "substantial scientific uncertainty" still exists about the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment. The statement meant the Bush administration would not have to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this view. (The Washington Post would later report that "two of the jurists who helped decide the case" had "attended a six-day global warming seminar ... sponsored by a free-market foundation and featuring presentations from companies with a clear financial interest in limiting regulation.")
Twelve states, three major cities, and several environmental groups appealed the decision, arguing the case "goes to the heart of the EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time."
Ultimately, the Supreme Court's ruling "could determine how the nation addresses global warming." Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) is optimistic about the court's decision. "It is encouraging that the high court feels this case needs to be reviewed," said Jeffords, a supporter of carbon dioxide regulation. "It is high time to stop relying on technicalities and finger pointing to avoid action on climate change."
Industry is polluting science
In 1999, President Bush called carbon dioxide "one of four main pollutants" that needed "mandatory reduction targets for emissions." But he changed his position in a 2003 letter that claimed it "is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." (Not surprisingly, the American Petroleum Institute agrees: "Fundamentally, we don't think carbon dioxide is a pollutant.")
Meanwhile, the EPA's own website defines carbon dioxide as "Industrial Air Pollution" that contributes to "global climate change." Jennifer Bradley and Timothy Dowling, who have co-written an amicus brief for the case, argue the "EPA's statutory justification depends on a rather tortured reading of the Clean Air Act [PDF]." First, the Act says the EPA must regulate any "air pollutant" that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The statute defines "air pollutant" broadly as "substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air." (No doubt carbon dioxide emissions fit within this broad definition.)
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »
EMAIL
PRINT
57 COMMENTS
