Supreme Court to take up regulation of greenhouse gases

June 26, 2006

There were some interesting rulings from the Supreme Court handed down this morning, but perhaps the most important development wasn’t a ruling, but an announcement about a case that the justices agreed to hear.

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.

“This is the whole ball of wax. This will determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency is to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and whether EPA can regulate carbon dioxide from power plants,” said David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club.

Bookbinder said if the court upholds the administration’s argument it also could jeopardize plans by California and 10 other states, including most of the Northeast, to require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles.

The case (Massachusetts, et al., v. EPA) questions whether the EPA “has a duty to regulate greenhouse gases” as a strategy to deal with global warming.

Keep an eye on this one; it’s going to be a very big deal.

I’m not sure I like where that one’s heading…

  • I’m not sure I like where that one’s heading…

    Same here, Mr. F. I said we should keep an eye on this one, not that we should be optimistic about it.

    One thing to keep in mind, however, about this case: it’s about whether the EPA is obligated to regulate greenhouse gases. Even the Supreme Court decides that no such obligation exists, the government can still regulate the emissions.

  • Is it too late to bring back Justice O’Connor for a final farewell case? If teh Court upholds the suit and forces the EPA to enforce carbon dioxide it could be huge! Of course Bush will just ignore it if that happens. On the other hand if the court rules for the government we are all “F’d”.

  • This could go in either direction. On the one hand, SCOTUS could open the gates to a flood of administrative incompetence; however, it could just as easily swing in the opposite direction—and force Bush to attach a “signing statement” to a court ruling (which could quite easily bring this wretched administration down).

    The big hazard, as I see it for the short-term, would be that SCOTUS starts negating Congressional authority; a repeat of various “laws” established in Germany during the early 1930s that effectively gave the bulk of the Reichstag’s power to a silly little corporal with a Charlie Chaplin mustache But just as much of a hazard—if not more so—would be for the Judicial branch to infringe upon the checks-and-balances system of government that currently exists betwen the Legislative and the Administrative branches. Bluntly put, SCOTUS becomes the “ayatollahs” of the US Government….

  • Sure they can regulate it, but the regulation may be along the lines of “reducing the CO2 emission per unit of economic activity” like Bush advocates. So, even though we may be releasing less per unit, if the units keep growing, where are we? Saying we are making progress, but the problem grows worse day by day. That about sums up the Orwellian world of Bush and the GOP.

  • Even the Supreme Court decides that no such obligation exists, the government can still regulate the emissions.

    In the thirty seconds of thought I’ve given this, I don’t know how they could come to any other decision. And if that decision is rendered in the current (political) climate, the GOP and the Rush Limbaughs of the world will practically declare the EPA and all regulation illegal, if not unconstitutional.

  • “questions whether the EPA “has a duty to regulate greenhouse gases” as a strategy to deal with global warming.”

    EPA: Environmental PROTECTION Agency.

    Established to PROTECT the Environment.

    Maybe I’m too much of a simpleton on this issue, but if you’re going to call it the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, then one of that agency’s main goals should be to make sure the Earth doesn’t turn into a twin of Venus.

  • it’s good to see they haven’t forgotten Bush’s bait-and-switch routine (or is a Flip-Flop?) from the 2000 election…

    …President Bush, when first running for president, expressed support for regulating carbon dioxide, but he reversed himself shortly after getting into office…

  • Judges impact themselves and their families with an unfriendly ruling for the Earth. I wonder if such brilliant legal minds can overlook the obvious.
    We’re all in this together.

  • beware as this may end up one of those “be careful what you wish for” topics.

    prediction: if the Sup Ct says the EPA must regulate CO2, it will enact regulation more lax than progressives and progressive states want — and then argue that the EPA regulations completely preempt more stringent state efforts at pollution control, resulting in a net loss for environmental quality.

  • Given the current composition of the court would anyone be surprised if they decided that the EPA was illegal?

    • Comments are closed.