This one bears watching. The case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency was argued before the US Supreme Court on November 29, 2006. At issue is whether the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. ยง 7521(a)(1), requires the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines "which in his judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
12 states and several environmental organizations (the Petitioners) have brought the suit (Docket No. 05-1120). You can read the briefs presented on Nov. 29th here and a Friend of the Court brief in support of the EPA's position here.
The case is highly unlikely to settle the question of whether human activity is causing climate change but will instead concentrate more narrowly on what is required under the wording of the Clean Air Act. If the statutory definition covers CO2, EPA must regulate it. It is also possible that if the Supreme Court upholds the lower Appeals Court's decision and rules for EPA that the next session of Congress may take up new enabling legislation.
Things are moving on many fronts regarding global climate change. It is no longer a back burner issue in the United States. This August, a Zogby poll of 1,000 registered voters found an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Independents and 56% of Republicans are more convinced that global climate change is happening than they were two years ago.
In another poll, a majority of hunters and fishermen believe that global warming is negatively impacting the environment. Respondents were overwhelmingly male, voted for president Bush by 2-1 margin in 2004, and 1/2 identified themselves as evangelical Christians. This group favored by about 2/3 "a presidential candidate who supports strong laws and immediate action to address global warming. 75% agreed that "Congress should pass legislation that sets a clear national goal for reducing global warming pollution with mandatory timelines because industry has already had enough time to clean up voluntarily."
Which might help explain the political motivation for Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and John D. Rockefeller (D-WVA), who wrote this letter last week to the CEO of Exxon/Mobil requesting "that ExxonMobil end any further financial assistance or other support to groups or individuals whose public advocacy has contributed to the small, but unfortunately effective, climate change denial myth." While the letter is not, perhaps, the one I might have written (too wordy, too obviously intended for public viewing), I am not a Senator with subpoena power. Look for hearings in the next session on our energy policy and uncomfortable questions about access and influence.
Hat tip to Tigerhawk for drawing my attention to this letter and the Wall Street Journal editorial it prompted.
Comments