Sweet Justice

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the environment on Monday April 2, 2007!

Jigga What?

In honor of this pretty monumental occasion, your weekly tip has been hijacked by a Green is the New Pink NewsFlash. Here’s the deal…we explain in normal-person-non-legalese terms what happened and why it’s important. Then you go out in the world full of facts and ready to back yourself up the next time someone at a bar (or by the office water cooler, or at the next family get-together) picks a fight with you about the validity of global warming.

Okay… A little (condensed) background…13 states, several U.S. cities and a number of environmental groups were suing the Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA). Their beef? So far, the EPA (an agency under the wing of the current not-so-green Bush administration) has had a very laissez-faire attitude about greenhouse gas emissions. These groups, cities and states WANT the EPA to create some mandatory regulations to lessen the greenhouse emissions from cars and power plants, but so far, the EPA has done nothing, saying that “voluntary” industry regulation is enough—no need for government imposed regulation. Shockingly, not many automobile manufacturers are jumping at the chance to regulate their products fuel emissions. So surprising, we know.

At this point you may be asking yourself WHY the EPA (yes, the environmental PROTECTION agency) has no desire to help curtail these emissions if they have the authority to do so? (And especially when these fuel and power plant emissions are such a key component of global warming and when the technology to clean up these emissions already exists).

Well, again the EPA is not necessarily a non-partisan agency…and so though they are committed to protecting the environment, the degree to which they do varies on the administration that’s in office.

Back to the case. After going back and forth with appeals and what not, this case landed in the hands of the Supreme Court. The Court had to answer 3 specific questions:

1. Can states sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to challenge its decision?

Okay, do these states even have a right to be suing the EPA in the first place? The Court ruled “Yes”, these states do have the right. This makes sense especially when you consider that if the EPA does not start imposing some greenhouse gas regulations, several plans by California and 11 other states to require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from cars would have been jeopardized. Point 1 for the green team. Next question…

2. Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe/power plant emissions of greenhouse gases?

Without going into all the details of the Clean Air Act, they were basically asking the court whether or not the EPA could even impose these regulations on CO2 emissions if they wanted to. The court ruled that YES the EPA CAN impose regulations like that. Point 2. Last question….

3. Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate the emissions from cars and power plants?

So, if the EPA does indeed have the authority to regulate tailpipe and power plant emissions, does that mean they HAVE to? Just because they have the power to, do they have to exercise it?

This third question yielded the trickiest—yet still positive—response. Essentially, the court said that if the EPA doesn’t want to regulate, they have to give a good reason why not—in other words, prove that tailpipe and power plant emissions don’t harm the environment or contribute to global warming.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion. "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change." The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of patchwork reasons that include foreign policy considerations, but that in the future, they must only give reasons that tie more closely to the Clean Air Act and environmental concerns.

So that means the EPA could still decide not to regulate carbon dioxide, BUT only if it also concluded that such emissions do not contribute to climate change or endanger public health. And that’s a point that’s going to be almost impossible to make considering the widespread view among top climate scientists that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the principal heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas that, if not contained, will lead to significant warming of the Earth, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.

So, the court is essentially saying that unless the EPA can show them a good reason not to, they MUST START REGULATING GREENHOUSE GASES in cars and power plants. And it also means a huge boost to California and the other states’ prospects for gaining EPA approval of their own programs to limit tailpipe emissions, beginning with as early as next year.

Yay! Break out the Dom! Have a drink on us… and don’t be shy…you know the facts now…go be smart.