Global Warming Is Heating Up In The Supreme Court

The global warming issue is heating up (yes, pun intended) and it’s scheduled to hit the floor of the U.S. Supreme Court soon. You see, back in 1970 Congress adopted a piece of legislation called the Clean Air Act. Being one of the first major pieces of environmental legislation, it was largely descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and it took quite a while for politicians and regulators to come up with any type of enforceable standards. Back then, the prevailing wisdom was that pollution was a necessary cost of progress and that environmental protection and economic growth were diametrically opposed. This was particularly true in small rural areas having a single-industry economic base. One local mayor fighting such environmental regs was quoted as saying, “If you want this town to grow, it has got to stink.”

The complicated history of this case traces back to 1999 when a coalition of environmental groups filed an administrative rulemaking petition to the EPA to set motor vehicle emission standards for four major greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide being one of them. Working at record speed (for a snail), the EPA finally got around to denying the petition in 2003. Tenacious, and perhaps a tad accustomed to many rounds of defeat, the environmental coalition brought the decision before the Federal Appeals Court where it was again shot down by a 4-3 vote in July of 2005. That brings us to today and the decision to again appeal, this time to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Backers of the appeal include the state and city governments of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, the American Samoa Government, New York City, and Baltimore. Environmental groups in the coalition include the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the International Center for Technology Assessment, the National Environmental Trust, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

The coalition argues that the EPA is obligated under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles because as the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Not everyone agrees with this position. For example, industry mouthpieces such as John Felmy, (chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute), say “Fundamentally, we don't think carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and so we don't think these attempts are a good idea." Of course, Mr. Felmy is paid to have that opinion, and what exactly does an economist know about atmospheric science anyway?

I’m not exactly comfortable with the idea of 9 old guys in black robes having the final word on this, and there are more than a few other people in high places who’ll be watching this case with serious vested interest as well. If the lower court’s decision is upheld, it will jeopardize current plans in 11 states to set vehicular carbon dioxide emissions standards. Given the pace of progress in the courts, it’s likely to be a while before a decision is handed down. In the mean time, if you want a quick, and neatly-packaged education in global warming and the need for curtailing carbon dioxide emissions, check out the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, narrated by former Vice President Al Gore.