On a greener note

The Supreme Court is now hearing a case intended to force the EPA to curtail carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping chemicals from automobile tailpipes. Spearheaded by the state of Massachusetts (GO MASSHOLES!), the case is challenging the Bush administration on their stance on global warming.

The following article that I pulled off the internet (that was in turn pulled off of the Environment News Service site) explains the issue more clearly than I ever could:

A coalition of 12 states, three major cities, one island government and several environmental groups Friday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.
The coalition, led by Massachusetts, is asking the court to review a decision issued last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA. That ruling let stand the EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly and the other parties argue that "this case goes to the heart of EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time."
"If ever there was a case that warranted Supreme Court review, this is it," Reilly said. "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to address the problem of global warming."
The petition maintains that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is at odds with Supreme Court precedent on statutory interpretation, because it allowed EPA to refuse to regulate greenhouse gases based on policy considerations outside the scope of the Clean Air Act.
"Delay has serious potential consequences," the petition states. "Given that air pollutants associated with climate change are accumulating in the atmosphere at an alarming rate, the window of opportunity in which we can mitigate the dangers of climate change is rapidly closing."
The petition claims that the EPA "arbitrarily and capriciously" concluded that the Clean Air Act does not provide the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The petition states that the Supreme Court's review "is necessary to prevent the agency from continuing to claim that a decision of this Court prevents it from taking regulatory action to address climate change."
The case originated in 1999, when various environmental groups filed an administrative rulemaking petition requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.
In August of 2003, the EPA denied the pending rulemaking petition. At that time, EPA also stated that, as a policy matter, it would not set motor vehicle emission standards even if it had authority. In October of 2003, this decision was challenged.
On July 15, 2005, the federal appeals court for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 to let the EPA's current position on greenhouse gas pollutants stand. In August, the full bench of the appeals court for the D.C. Circuit was asked to hear the case. The court denied that request with a 4-3 decision, paving the way for the Supreme Court appeal.
The parties to this lawsuit include states with both Republican and Democratic administrations - California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, the District of Columbia, American Samoa Government, and the cities of New York and Baltimore.
"Scientists are clear about the danger that global warming poses to public health and the environment," said New Jersey Attorney General Zulima Farber.
"What also is clear, and what was affirmed by two prior EPA general counsel, is that EPA has authority to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming," Farber said. "We cannot permit EPA to walk away from its responsibility in this critical area."
"Global warming is one the biggest threats facing the planet and we cannot delay action," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. "Left unchecked, it can cause devastation to our economy, public health, natural resources. It is time for the Environmental Protection Agency to step up and fulfill its responsibility to fight this problem."
The environmental groups that are parties to the lawsuit include the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technology Assessment, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
"The lower court's blatant punting on global warming is a travesty. Despite the plain and simple language of the law the lower court refused to act," said John Stanton, vice president for the National Environmental Trust, one of the environmental groups petitioning the Supreme Court. "It's time for the nation's highest court to correct the lower court and take on global warming."
"Global warming is real, it's happening now and President [George W.] Bush has the legal authority to regulate the pollution that's causing it. He just doesn't want to," said Stanton. "The Supreme Court must overturn the lower courts judicial activism and give this case a proper hearing."
The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute supports the EPA's position. “The voting majority of the D.C. Circuit deserves thanks for reaffirming the Court’s initial decision and keeping the judicial branch out of what is essentially a legislative question,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute Counsel Hans Bader on December 2, 2005 just after the lower court ruling was handed down. “Besides the fact that the plain language of the Clean Air Act grants no powers to the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, any court-ordered solution to the controversy over greenhouse gas emissions would constitute a violation of the separation of powers," said Bader. "Clearly, Congress is the proper forum for such policy debates.”

Remember that the global warming debate is a very important issue that affects all of us. It is a quality of life issue for us, for our parents, for our children, and for our children's children. We need to advance the cause of the environment now. So continue to write to your elected representatives and let them know how you feel on environmental issues.