NEWS

Editorial: Global warming gets high-court treatment

04/04/2007

Editorial: Global warming gets high-court treatment

Burlington Free-Press

As far as the courts are concerned, the biggest chunk of the global warming debate is settled: Government has a role in regulating greenhouse gases because it contributes to climate change.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the federal Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act has the authority to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, saying the Bush administration was wrong to claim the agency had no such power. The ruling also casts aside claims that the EPA can't regulate auto emissions because that would amount to setting mileage standards, something only the Department of Transportation can do.

The majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens could have a major impact in Vermont, where the state faces an auto industry lawsuit over attempts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. But the Supreme Court ruling's broader impact will be the language of the decision, which for the first time includes unequivocal recognition of global warming and its impact on the nation's welfare.

In its 5-4 ruling, the nation's highest court noted, "EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming," and added, "Judged by any standard, U.S. motor vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations."

In the dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts argued against the legal maneuvering that gave Massachusetts standing before the court, and added that it's difficult to show the direct link between the specific harm—in this case the loss of coastal land in Massachusetts due to rising sea levels—and auto emissions' contribution to global warming.

Even so, Roberts wrote, "Such a conclusion involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem."

In case anyone thinks that the Supreme Court ruling is a partisan victory, the office of the governor, a Republican, issued this statement on Monday: "Gov. Jim Douglas has long asserted that the federal government needs to become more aggressive in its enforcement of environmental laws, and is supportive of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles."

The ruling isn't likely to change the minds of global warming skeptics, nor should it end the debate on climate change. As we've said before, anything so important to the future of the planet demands on-going investigation, including a constant weighing of basic assumptions against emerging evidence.

What the ruling does is give added weight to the argument that the focus must move beyond debating the validity of global warming and toward taking action.