Related articles:

Supreme Court reminds EPA of its mission

Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Health Care
Dependable Health Services
Physical Therapists Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Construction
West-Press
Printing Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration Monday for its inaction on global warming in a decision that could lead to more fuel-efficient cars in some states as early as next year.

The court, ruling 5-4 in its first case on climate change, declared that carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under the landmark environmental law.

But it's not clear whether the decision will mean federal or state regulation of greenhouse gases in the near future.

The EPA has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide from auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.

Twelve states, led by California, have proposed their own emission limits. Arizona has said it intends to impose such limits. But Arizona has not yet formally proposed any rules, and state officials weren't available Monday to comment about the court ruling.

The ruling also was a victory for three University of Arizona scientists and a UA law professor. They and 15 other scientists around the country helped to produce a "friend of the court" brief arguing that the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming was clear.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency can "avoid taking further action" now is "if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change," or if it provides a good explanation for why it cannot or will not find out whether they do. The opening words of Stevens' opinion took note of the 18 scientists' view, saying: "A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related."

The high court said the "laundry list" of reasons the EPA has given for declining to regulate greenhouse gases was insufficient.

The court's four conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — dissented. In one dissenting opinion, Scalia said the court should not substitute its judgment in place of the EPA's, "no matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake."

In the short term, the decision boosts the prospects of California and 11 other states for gaining EPA approval of their own program to limit tailpipe emissions, beginning with the 2009 model year. Those cars will begin appearing in showrooms next year. Emission limits would become stricter each year until 2016.

Arizona environmental officials weren't saying Monday whether they're ready to follow those states' footsteps in formally proposing "clean car" standards to cut carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. Calls to Gov. Janet Napolitano's office and to the Department of Environmental Quality seeking comment on the high court's ruling weren't returned.

In an executive order last September, Napolitano took the first step toward what eventually could be a ban on the sale of cars and light trucks that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. She ordered state agencies to adopt and implement a Clean Car Program, effective in 2009, to reduce carbon dioxide and other gases that are believed to contribute to global warming. While details are still to be worked out, Napolitano has said the final order likely would follow what California and other states already have adopted.

But since then, Arizona officials haven't formally proposed such rules, partly because they lacked the clear authority to do so until the Supreme Court weighed in. Napolitano also has sidestepped questions on whether her administration has the legal authority under state law to adopt such rules.

Still, the UA professors involved in the Supreme Court case called Monday's ruling a victory for climate science. The first two sentences of Stevens' opinion was precisely what their brief had criticized the EPA for neglecting to discuss — that "respected scientists" agree on the connection between rising temperatures and greenhouse gases, said one of the UA scientists, Scott Saleska, an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology.

"The substance of the case is about law, not science, but it starts off with what the scientific case is," Saleska said.

The court ruling also was a solid opinion on the Clean Air Act's meaning, saying it does cover greenhouse gases, said UA law professor Kirsten Engel, one of four attorneys who worked on the scientists' brief. While it doesn't automatically mean new regulations will be issued, the ruling limited the EPA to looking at issues of science as opposed to bringing in what Engel called extraneous factors such as diplomacy.

The EPA is studying the court's ruling, agency spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said. In the meantime, she defended the EPA's voluntary partnerships to reduce emissions.