Is the federal government the authority in determining reaction to climate change?
That’s the question.
An excerpt.
A Hot Case
This fall, the Supreme Court will consider perhaps its most important environmental case in recent history.
By Debra Rosenberg, Newsweek
Sept. 3, 2006 - If you thought only wonks in Birkenstocks cared about global warming, think again. Last week a coalition of green activists, states and cities, religious groups, energy companies and even a ski resort filed briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency should regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. The EPA disagrees, arguing that when Congress passed the Clean Air Act, lawmakers never envisioned a massive greenhouse-gas control program. The court is expected to hear arguments in the case, Massachusetts v. EPA, this December. David Bookbinder, senior attorney for the Sierra Club, spoke about the case with NEWSWEEK's Debra Rosenberg.
NEWSWEEK: This has been called one of the most important environmental cases ever to come before the U.S. Supreme Court. What's at stake?
David Bookbinder: What's at stake is whether or not the federal government has the authority to deal with climate change. Given that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue to face the planet, whether or not the U.S. government can do anything about it is a damn important question. The court will decide two questions. Does the Clean Air Act give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases? If it gives EPA that authority, can EPA avoid exercising that authority simply because it doesn't want to? Our answers to those two questions are yes and no respectively.
Is the case limited to auto emissions?
That's the specific question in this case, but EPA said, "We have no authority to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles because we have no authority to do it for anything." We have a separate case in the D.C. circuit that's on hold dealing with power plants.
We've seen the Supreme Court punt a few times lately, sidestepping the merits of cases to rule narrowly on technical grounds. Do you think the justices might do that here?
No, I don't think so. There's really no wiggle room. Either EPA has this authority or not. It's a very plain language case.
