Court Turns Up the Heat on Global Warming

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court affirms that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon emissions

by Moira Herbst

Adding to the mounting pressure for federal legislation on climate change, the U.S. Supreme Court on Apr. 2 ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from vehicle emissions and that the agency has shirked its responsibility to do so.

The 5-4 decision in the high court's first global warming case is a rebuke to the administration of President George W. Bush, which has opposed mandatory caps on carbon emissions. The EPA, headed by Bush appointees, has declined to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming for a number of reasons, including its argument that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases emitted from car tailpipes aren't pollutants.

The groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling establishes that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are, in fact, pollutants and fall under regulation established by the Clean Air Act of 1970. "EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command," the court said in the majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens. "Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate."

Ruling Isn't a Requirement

The decision included sharp words for the Administration: "[W]hile the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."

The court's ruling doesn't explicitly require the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. But the agency can avoid doing so "only if it determines greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."

A spokeswoman for the EPA said in an e-mail that the agency "is reviewing the court's decision to determine the appropriate course of action." She added that the "Bush Administration has spent over $35 billion on climate-change programs—more than any other country in the world."

Minority View

The dissenting judges had critical words for the majority. The minority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and signed by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Roberts wrote that new motor-vehicle greenhouse gas emissions have played only a "bit part" in the "150-year global phenomenon" of global warming, and that lead plaintiff Massachusetts' link of the loss of coastal land to such emissions is "far too speculative to establish connection." In his own, additional dissent, Justice Scalia argued that even if global warming is a crisis requiring immediate attention, it is the job of Congress and the President—not the courts—to address it. "No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."

The lawsuit that sparked the Supreme Court decision was brought by cities and states, including Massachusetts, that claimed the EPA's refusal to regulate carbon emissions was causing harm to their residents (see BusinessWeek.com, 10/30/06, "Global Warming: Here Come The Lawyers"). The case is specifically about carbon emissions from cars and trucks produced by the auto industry. But it may serve as a precedent for broader regulation of carbon emissions, including those from power companies. The key is that the decision defines greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as pollutants, affirming they fall under the regulatory scope of the Clean Air Act. With that definition established, states and Congress appear to be entitled to enact legislation curbing them.

Environmental groups say that the decision is a crucial step in the path to federal carbon emissions legislation. "Today's ruling is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club in a statement.