Washington - The US Supreme Court declared global warming a
serious and urgent problem in its first ever ruling on the subject
Monday.
The heavily divided court ruled that the federal government has
the authority under a 1990 clean air law to cap carbon dioxide and
other emissions from vehicles that are blamed for global warming.
But it also said the Environmental Protection Agency is not
obligated to control the emissions, although it implied the EPA would
have to come up with scientific reasons for not doing so.
In the end, the decision left further action up to the federal
government and an increasingly impatient group of individual states
that have enacted or are on the verge of enacting stringent controls
out of frustration over inaction during six years of the
administration of US President George W Bush.
The ruling came just days before an international panel of
scientists is to release a much-awaited report on the expected
societal and economic affects of global warming, in Brussels on
Friday.
In a 5-4 decision, the US high court showed itself just as divided
as the throng of states and businesses wrestling over the landmark
case.
The arguments revolved around the federal government's
environmental agency and a 17-year-old law on air pollution.
Proponents led by the state of Massachusetts - which fears for its
coastal regions if global warming's threats of rising sea levels come
true - argued that the 1990 Clean Air Act authorizes and even obliges
the government to set limits on carbon dioxide emissions,
specifically from vehicles.
The case was backed by 12 states, three cities, 14 environmental
groups, a ski resort and a number of businesses.
Opponents - led by the EPA and backed by a group of 10 states,
nine automakers, utility companies and businesses - argued that
carbon dioxide could not readily be defined as an air pollutant, and
therefore did not fall under the guise of the 1990 law.
The Supreme Court chose the middle ground, arguing that
the EPA clearly has the authority to regulate emissions under the
Clean Air Act, but not the obligation.
'The harms associated with climate change are serious and well-
recognized ... The risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is
nevertheless real,' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority
opinion.
He criticized the EPA for offering a 'laundry list of reasons
not to regulate.'
That opened the door for 11 states poised to adopt stringent
emissions standards on new vehicle models - an authority they also
claimed to derive from the Clean Air Act.
Environmental groups welcomed the ruling, but at the same time
recognized that rigorous caps on greenhouse gases will likely only
emerge through the new Democratic-led Congress, rather than through
the 1990 law that makes little mention of global warming.
The US contributes 25 per cent of the world's greenhouse gasses,
yet has refused under Bush to join the international Kyoto protocol
that sets limits, to the annoyance of most other industrialized
countries that have joined.
While the Supreme Court's decision would allow the US government
to impose limits on greenhouse gases without having to go back to
Congress, Bush has shown no intention of doing so.
He has acknowledged that global warming is a 'serious challenge'
but has stood by voluntary caps, saying it's better for the economy.
'This is likely to increase pressure on Congress to act quickly on
global warming,' Philip Clapp, president of the National
Environmental Trust, a plaintiff, said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the decision sent a message
to the Bush administration to 'stop obstructing environmental
progress and start finding solutions.'
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Monday called for a
'national, federal, economy-wide approach to addressing greenhouse
gases,' highlighting growing concern by investors and industry that
the emerging patchwork of state regulations could harm the economy
more than a nationwide cap on emissions.
The dissenters questioned whether global warming is a localized
problem that could be meaningfully addressed by a government agency.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the goal of global warming action
'is literally to change the atmosphere around the world.'
He questioned whether EPA action could improve the situation for
the specific plaintiffs; challenged the science backing up global
warming; and said the evidence was 'toothless' that global warming
was an imminent threat.
'It is difficult to put much stock in the predicted loss of land'
faced by Massachusetts, Roberts wrote.
Stevens strongly criticized the EPA - and some of his
fellow justices - for deflecting responsibility for addressing global
warming, and called on the agency to make a direct case against
emission caps.
'EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide
whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,'
Stevens wrote.
'Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive
problems in one fell regulatory swoop ... They instead whittle away
at them over time.'
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur 
Your Talkback on this Story