Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Global Warming Case

This could be very interesting:

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court's most important decisions on the environment.

The decision means the court will address whether the administration's decision to rely on voluntary measures to combat climate change are legal under federal clean air laws.

...

The administration maintains that carbon dioxide -- unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to assure healthy air -- is not a pollutant under the federal clean air law, and that even if it were the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it.

A federal appeals court sided with the administration in a sharply divided ruling.

One judge said the EPA's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide was contrary to the clean air law; another said that even if the Clean Air Act gave the EPA authority over the heat-trapping chemical, the agency could choose not to use that authority; a third judge ruled against the suit because, he said, the plaintiffs had no standing because they hadn't proven harm.

The States core argument appears to be that carbon dioxide, as a deleterious chemical present in the atmosphere, falls under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA has a responsibility to regulate it like any pollutant.

Climate politics aside, the federal government does have a point when they say that CO2 isn't a pollutant. Pollutants, at least as I understand the term, are compounds which are directly biologically toxic. CO2 doesn't fit that criterion. I see how you could argue that CO2 is indirectly damaging, but it sounds like stuffing a square peg through a round hole.

As much as some states would like to force EPA regulation, I doubt the remedy is going to end up being judicial. My suspicion is that it is going to require a change of heart in Congress or in the Administration.

In any event, this is definitely a case to watch.

More like this

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Massachusetts et al. v. EPA. In the case, several state governments are suing the EPA for failing to regulate CO2 as a greenhouse gas. There are many levels of legal conflict on which the justices could rule, summarized in the NYTimes coverage:…
A few hours ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA that EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from auto emissions. (For background on the case, see this post.) David Stout of the New York Times summarizes: In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found that the Clean Air Act…
As the Supreme Court begins to emerge from its summer hibernation, lots of stories are coming out previewing impending cases and controversies. The ACS blog takes a look at Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1120 a case about whether the EPA is obliged by law…
With the Supreme Court deciding yesterday to hear a case challenging the Bush administration's enforcement of the Clean Air Act (Times coverage here, Post here), the Center for American Progress has issued the following Talking Points memo framing the issue of climate change around PUBLIC…