GOP Ignores Danger of Global Warming

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.)

Also, the Act explicitly refers to CO2 as a pollutant when it states "pollution prevention" should be carried out with "improvements in nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing multiple air pollutants, including ... carbon dioxide." Second, Bradley and Dowling argue, the "Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to weigh policy considerations [PDF] in deciding whether to regulate." (For example, the EPA did so in 2003 when they "questioned the wisdom of a 'piecemeal' approach to greenhouse gases.") "Policy considerations such as the costs and benefits of regulation or the existence of alternative methods more to the current administration's liking," they write, "are far outside those statutory boundaries."

New studies strengthen the case for action

Several recent studies demonstrate both humanity's impact on climate change and the effects these changes have on the environment. The National Academy of Sciences, a "private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters," found in their comprehensive study of climate change data that "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."