Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 7 • Number 7 • 13th April 2007

Court Ruling Confirms US Environmental Agency’s Power to Regulate Greenhouse Gases

Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

The US Supreme Court ruled on 2 April that the top US regulatory agency in environmental matters has the authority to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.

The dispute dates back to 1999, when environmentalists filed a petition calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The Bush administration — which pulled the country out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 — claimed, however, that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant covered by the Clean Air Act, and that the EPA did not have authority to impose regulations. The EPA, for its part, argued that it had no power to regulate non-point source emissions.

A dozen states and 13 environmental groups filed a suit challenging the EPA decision, which ten states and several automobile trade groups backed. The Supreme Court was charged with responding to three questions, namely: whether the states could sue the EPA to challenge its decision; whether the Clean Air Act provided the EPA with the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions; and if so, whether the EPA had the discretion not to regulate the emissions.

In its verdict, the Supreme Court said carbon dioxide was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA ” offered no reasoned explanation” for refusing to regulate carbon dioxide and other vehicle emissions that contribute to climate change. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court majority, said the EPA’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

“The ruling is a total rejection of the Bush administration’s refusal to use its existing authority to meet the challenge posed by global warming. It also sends a clear signal to the markets that the future lies not in the dirty, outdated technologies of yesterday, but in the clean energy solutions that will fuel the economy of tomorrow”, said Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

The court stopped short of requiring the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, however. Environmentalists noted that by not requiring the EPA to take any particular action, the court decision sent a signal to Congress. “It’s important to remember the Court did not rule EPA has to take action on climate change, that’s why this is ultimately up to Congress. The Court did all it can, but if we’re really going to fix climate change, Congress has pass a cap on carbon pollution, and soon,” said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense.

The ruling came days before a global conference of negotiators and scientists approved a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which provided strong evidence of the current and future impacts of climate change (see related story, this issue).

ICTSD reporting; “US court rules against Bush in global warming case,” REUTERS, 2 April 2007; “U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Bush Policy on Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” ABC NEWS, 2 April 2007; “Supreme Court Rules EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases,” ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, 2 April 2007; “Court: Do something about global warming,” THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 3 April 2007.