Court Rebukes Administration in Global Warming Case

By stoat on April 2, 2007.

Court Rebukes Administration in Global Warming Case says the NYT (thanks to J), and its April the 2nd not first so I guess we can trust them.

In a vain attempt to blog this before the usual suspects do, I haven't bothered to more than skim the report of the decision. But it looks interesting... "In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars. Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion." OK, so far so obvious. "The court's four conservative justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented." No real surprise there. I'm sure people who know the court better will analyse the split more carefully. "The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case." Indeed? Not that the court cares for that... does it? "In many ways, the debate has moved beyond this," said Chris Miller, director of the global warming campaign for Greenpeace, one of the environmental groups that sued the EPA. "All the front-runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, even the business community, are much further along on this than the Bush administration is." Indeed. So is the court swinging behind the new political mood? Maybe. I couldn't judge. "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," sez the court. Of course that doesn't mean that the EPA actually *will* regulate them... they could just go back and scrounge up some better reasons. Or (and this is my bet) they could just set off a review of their decision and wait for the next Prez election before they make up their minds.

Tags
climate communication

More like this

SCOTUS hears arguments in Mass et al. v EPA
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:…
Carbon dioxide really is pollution: SCOTUS
The U.S. Supreme Court says the Environmental Protection Agency has offered "no reasoned explanation" why it shouldn't regulate carbon dioxide, just like every other pollutant spewing from tailpipes and smokestacks. You'd think that would be a no-brainer, but ... The court's four most conservative…
Your Stance on Global Warming Has Come to Define Your Identity as Either a Democrat or a Republican
Despite the ever growing scientific consensus about the nature and urgency of global warming, Americans remain more divided politically on the matter than at anytime in history. The reason is that personal views on global warming have come to define what being a Democrat or Republican means. As GOP…
Justices Rejects Bush Administration Excuses on Global Warming
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…

""The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case." Indeed? Not that the court cares for that... does it?"

Various schools of legal realism argue that judges make decisions for reasons other than the legal analysis they state as their justification. You could see a range in the seriousness about climate change, with the majority taking it very seriously, the Roberts dissent moderately, and Scalia dissent barely mentioning its importance. I think the increased awareness affects Supreme Court justices.

My guess is that EPA staffers will try and delay until the next president, but Bush could try and push it out in his term if he really wants to - for good or for evil.