Court rules C02 Auto Emissions as Pollutant, under Clean Air Act; EPA may appeal to "higher power," but likely will, in fact, begin writing new emission regulations. We will see how this administration obeys the Court.

Les Porter's Note: I would rather like to see the Federal Science Agencies, EPA, NOAA, NASA, DOE, USGS, released from political influence of any administration with firm legal remedies to alleviate the current administrations editing of scientific reports. I would rather see nominations to the science positions provided by the National Academies, and selected by the Senate independent of cabinet nominations. The cabinet positions would never be allowed to direct editing of the science.

Use this link to join me and we can discuss what crimes against humanity the current administration is party to and even directing.

http://www.xomba.com/referral/77777d6e

Eli Kintisch, writing for ScienceNOW Daily News, 2 April 2007, reports the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that four greenhouse gases produced by motor vehicles are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This ruling was the first visit of the Court into Global warming and climate change.

Today's five-to-four ruling is seen as a victory for those pressuring the Bush Administration to act on global warming and paves the way for new federal regulations on the greenhouse gases.

Eli Kintisch writes, Carbon dioxide and three other gases that U.S. autos spew made up 6% of the world's greenhouse emissions in 1999. That year, a group of nonprofits asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the gases under the Clean Air Act, which calls for regulations on "air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." EPA declined to do so -- citing scientific uncertainty about the impact of the gases on climate and a concern that new regulations would disrupt technology development and voluntary efforts to reduce emissions.

So! Massachusetts, eleven other states, and a host of environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency.(From the Court's PDF, URL below, I have attached the parties to the lawsuit.) (1)

In a 32-page decision, Eli Kintisch states, the majority in Massachusetts v. EPA said that the Administration's reasons for inaction had "nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment."

Eli Kintisch mentions the majority with the following statement, and I quote:" Writing on behalf of the five justices, Justice John Paul Stevens cited science authorities including the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a 2001 National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) report on climate change that said that "greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." EPA's refusal to regulate auto emissions, Stevens argued, contributes to the possibility of coastal flooding and other damage to Massachusetts and the other plaintiff states."

The opinion is supported by Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, who rejected the government's argument that CO2 was not a pollutant requiring control under the Act's broad language. "While the Congresses that drafted [the Clean Air Act] might not have appreciated the possibility that burning fossil fuels could lead to global warming," Stevens wrote, "they did understand that without regulatory flexibility, changing circumstances and scientific developments would soon render the Clean Air Act obsolete."

Eli Kintisch writes that "in the first of two dissents, supporting the man who appointed him, Chief Justice John Roberts and three colleagues said that Massachusetts's stated injury--which is needed to fulfill a lawsuit requirement called standing--was too tenuously linked to emissions, making the suit invalid. A second dissent by the same group, written by Antonin Scalia, attacked the merits of the argument, namely that C02, which does not directly impact humans, could be defined as a pollutant. "It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an 'air pollutant,'" the dissent read.

Many Climate scientists cheered the decision.

"Hot dog!" said atmospheric scientist Steven Wofsy of Harvard University, who was joined on a friend-of-the-court brief by members of the 2001 NRC report. Wofsy said the government's "wrong" contention that "climate change is too uncertain to be regulated" compelled him to get involved: "Climate change is a problem that can and should be regulated."

Please Read Eli Kintisch's, uncommented article at:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/402/1

Also read the decision:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

(1) All Parties to the suit "Massachusetts v. EPA"

California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
District of Columbia, American Samoa, New York City, and Baltimore..
4Center 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.