The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that the Environmental Protection Agency can legally regulate greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warning, a rebuke to a presidential administration that has long argued that the EPA lacks such regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. The court's decision is here (.pdf).
But in its first decision on a case involving global warming, the court saw it differently, ruling in favor of a coalition of environmental groups and the state of Massachusetts who argued the EPA has not offered an adequate legal explanation for refusing to control harmful emissions from vehicles and industry. In the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the EPA has "refused to comply" with clear statutory obligations and instead "offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate."
Stevens noted that "when a State enters the Union, it surrenders certain sovereign prerogatives" that become lodged in the federal government. "EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both 'actual' and 'imminent.'" Presidential authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic law, Stevens wrote.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts), the chairman of the newly formed House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, called the ruling a "landmark decision. The scientific community, the public, and now the highest court in the nation have all called for action to confront the crisis of global warming," Markey said. "All the institutions of government are now moving towards recognition of the dangers of global warming, except the Bush Administration."
Unfortunately for the White House, the Supreme Court decision wasn't the only environmental beatdown it received in recent days. On Friday, a federal judge in California issued an injuction against the administration's 2005 plan to manage the country's 155 national forests. The revised Bush plan rolled back evironmental protections and opened up forests to logging, mining and other industrial use. But Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Federal District Court in San Francisco ruled that the Forest Service broke several laws in changing the rules and undermined environmental safeguards.
