Jack Sautter

December 2, 2006

On November 29 the Supreme Court for the first time took up the issue of global climate change. In the case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, a group of states led by Massachusetts are suing the Environmental Protection Agency to force the promulgate rules regulating carbon dioxide emissions from new automobiles. The EPA under the Bush Administration has refused to recognize carbon dioxide as a pollutant that is harmful to humans under its authority from the Clean Air Act. Therefore, since carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, the agency reasons, regulations do not have to be created to control it.

At the heart of the case is whether a state has standing to bring the claim. Standing means that the petitioner (in this case the state of Massachusetts) has suffered a harm that can be redressed by the court and is related to an action of the agency. Evidence presented in numerous amicus (friend of the court) briefs shows that Massachusetts has lost coast line as a result of the rising sea-level attributed to global climate change. EPA, however, argues that the science underlying climate change is uncertain as to whether global warming caused the harm. Therefore, the agency contends it is uncertain that the regulation of carbon dioxide would necessarily lead to the redress of the problem.

This could be the most important environmental Supreme Court case in the last decade. If decided for Massachusetts, it opens the door for other global warming suits. However, if the case is decided for the EPA it would mean the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide. This essentially throws climate change to Congress to be dealt with as a policy matter instead of a legal issue. No matter the outcome, the implications of this case will affect U.S. and world climate change policy for years to come.

Sources:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aeTgwcDsNtMU&refer=top_world_news

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061127/full/061127-9.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency