Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Car Emissions
Published April 03, 2007
Regulatory wars over climate change have inched up a notch as the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark 5-4 decision, told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that its decisions for setting regulations on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases must be "grounded" in statute--and that it has the authority to regulate automobile emissions of these gases.
In 2003, EPA said it did not have the authority to regulate CO2 emissions from cars. Eleven east and west coast states are part of a coalition led by Massachusetts, which filed the initial case and then an appeal of a lower court ruling in March, 2006. Eleven heartland states support EPA's refusal to regulate auto emissions.
Lyle Denniston at the SCOTUS Blog calls this the "most important environmental ruling in years." He notes that the Court relied primarily on a 1907 ruling (Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co.), and said it was noteworthy that the key party challenging EPA on the issue was a sovereign state. In that case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said that "The state...has the last word as to whether its mountains shall be stripped of their forests and its inhabitants shall breathe pure air."
Denniston goes on to say that Congress has ordered EPA to protect Massachusetts and others by laying down standards to regulate air pollutants...”What EPA thus must do next is to analyze the scientific data to determine whether greenhouse gases are a ‘danger’ to the global environment. ‘We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA's actions in the event that it makes such a finding...We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute’ — the Clean Air Act, the majority said.”
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA, 05-1120. Unsurprisingly, four conservative justices dissented: Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Roberts argued that the states did not have "standing" to sue, but the majority did not agree with him.
Last May, a group of scientists filed a brief in the case, claiming that a federal appeals court "misinterpreted science and the law when it ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have to regulate greenhouse gases produced by cars," such as CO2 emissions.
Cars are a major source of CO2 — accounting for about 20 percent of CO2 emissions by one estimate. Power plants are a larger source, at about 40 percent, but are regulated because they are a "point" source of pollution. Cars are considered "non-point" sources because they are not fixed geographically.
EPA has fought similar battles over point and non-point source water pollutants (and polluters).
In another environmental case, Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy Corp. (05-848), the Court overruled the District Court. In 2005, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals granted North Carolina Duke Energy the right to increase total air emissions as part of "new source review." Traditionally, when a plant is modernized or expanded, EPA requires a reduction in total emissions. In this case, the Appeals Court ruled that the power company only had to reduce its per hour emissions.
The Supreme Court upheld the position that changes in power plant air pollution emissions "must be done only with a permit if there is an annual increase in emissions."
Kathy is a motorcyclist and writer; a prof at UW in digital media and an MSF instructor; formerly state and federal lobbyist. More About US Politics at her regular blog.
- Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Car Emissions
- Published: April 03, 2007
- Type: News
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Kathy Gill
- Kathy Gill's BC Writer page
- Kathy Gill's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
And I keep saying that GW is NOT a science/environmental issue.
It's a control issue, and anybody who thinks otherwise is naive.
Some random, rambling thoughts about this article and the envirowhackos whose propaganda made it possible.
If CO2 is now considered a 'pollutant' then we should just strip all restrictions off of the EPA and let them regulate everything as the complete idea of a pollutant is now meaningless. Good things, bad things, anything is now a pollutant.
If there is no god and humans are simply slightly evolved animals (aka part of nature) then why are human things and actions considered unnatural? Shouldn't nature and natural apply to all things? In that context can nature ever be damaged or destroyed?
Plankton 'pollute' the atmosphere with oxygen without which we could not survive. Lucky they don't have their own micro-EPA.
I dislike self proclaimed environmentalists and their smug self righteous martyrdom just like those that loudly proclaim and proselytize regarding their vegetarianism every single time they eat out and those nutjob christians that bang on my door ever weekend. Screw you all, you're different faces of the same fucked up personality disorder.
To Doug:
All things -- even water -- can be considered a "pollutant" in sufficient doses. That's why the cardinal rule of epidemiology is "the dose makes the poison."
To Maurice & Clavos:
The EPA did not make a decision based a scientific analysis -- so I don't think it's accurate in this case to suggest science was cooked or ignored. As I understand it, science simply wasn't considered.
Please send some of that spare water Down Under, the stuff might be considered a pollutant ... we're experiencing a bit of a shortage at the moment.
Six years of drought and children who've never seen rain will really get you thinking about GW and whether it's real or not.
According to the CSIRO the drought here - which has even seen city water levels fall to near-critical levels - has been excerbated by global warming.
Just bear in mind too that that piece only relates to one part of the continent. The rest of the joint is dry as a bone. You have to see this to believe it, but it's bad. Take note Clav, old boy ... it's not the normal weather pattern.
It'd make believers of all you sceptics if you came here and saw for youselves. How's this: a mate's kid up in the bush had no memory of rain until he was sent to boarding school in Sydney.
He is 13.
Kathy:
Point taken in re the science, although I stand by my point about control; your entire article is precisely about the struggle for control.
One other point, Kathy: You say cars account for about 20% of CO2 emissions. I believe the more accurate statement would be that cars account for about 20% of man made CO2 emissions, as far more CO2 is produced by nature than by humanity.
Stan: I don't question that you have a terrible drought, OR that it's caused (at least in part) by the warming of the atmosphere. I DO question the extent to which it's caused by human activity. There is plenty of evidence to leave that point still open to debate, including that cited by Maurice above, and a host of other scientists as well.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/61963)
I have said it before, you need more faith to believe in the science of GW than you do to believe in God. I believe in neither.
I don't suscribe to the beliefs of PETA but I do think this is funny. Especially this part: "...pointed out to him that animals raised for food generate more greenhouse gases than all cars and trucks combined...".
And finally the real cause of warming/cooling trends.