Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 ruling on Massachusetts v. EPA that was widely seen as a judicial rebuke to the Bush administration's global warming policies. The case, brought forward by 12 states and 13 environmental groups in 1999, argued that the Environmental Protection Agency had failed to fulfill the responsibility given to it by the Clean Air Act of 1963 by failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide.
The Bush administration, under cries of obstructionism from environmental groups and others, has largely dodged the issue of global warming. Some have claimed the administration has gone so far as to alter language in scientific reports issued by governmental agencies to avoid discussing or endorsing the concept of global warming.
The lawsuit was filed in 1999 after the Republican-controlled Congress refused to adopt a global-warming policy. In 2003, the EPA claimed it lacked the authority to act, since carbon dioxide was a far more ubiquitous gas than those covered by the Clean Air Act; unlike industrial pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide is produced by the natural respiratory process of animals the world over.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens found ""a well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase ... of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."" The decision concluded that the Clean Air Act required the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, unless the EPA could provide a sound scientific rationale for refusing to do so.
Detractors of global warming notwithstanding, such a rationale will be rather hard to come by. The science on global warming is pretty clear. While it is certainly possible that other factors have contributed to the steady increase of temperatures in the last century, greenhouse gases almost certainly play a leading role.
So what does the SCOTUS ruling mean? Ideally, the EPA will immediately issue national standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars, factories and power plants. Unfortunately, Bush will undoubtedly continue to drag his feet on environmental issues, delaying any result from the EPA. With Congress occupied with issues that are arguably more immediate, it is unlikely any clear national standard will emerge for several years.
However, the ruling should assist states that have already enacted regulations themselves or states that are about to do so. Some state regulations, notably California's, are already tied up in lawsuits and complaints that should be resolved by the decision.
While Supreme Court rulings are notorious for their lack of immediate impact, a national standard will emerge, making it much easier for manufacturers to follow. The ruling should also be able to quaff some of the debate over global warming's existence.
And hopefully, everyone will be able to relax and chill out a little.
Keaton Miller is junior majoring in math and economics. He had a restful break, but after the bitter cold temperatures here in Madison, he has started doubting the existence of global warming himself. Time to start spraying aerosols everywhere! He also wishes that he could use the acronym SCOTUS more often. Heh. SCOTUS. E-mail him at keatonmiller@wisc.edu
