date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:53:16 +0100
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fwd: FYI: Supreme Court Opinion Attached
to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk

    Some of you might like to see the full ruling - it is a
    bit difficult to read though. Here's some more on it
    from the NY Times.
   [1]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/us/03impact.html?pagewanted=print
   April 3, 2007
   NEWS ANALYSIS
   Ruling Undermines Lawsuits Opposing Emissions Controls
   By FELICITY BARRINGER
   Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on carbon dioxide emissions largely shredded the
   underpinning of other lawsuits trying to block regulation of the emissions and gave new
   momentum to Congressional efforts to control heat-trapping gases linked to climate change.
   Environmental groups and states that have adopted controls on carbon dioxide emissions from
   vehicle tailpipes responded with jubilation, while the auto industry and some of its
   backers, like Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the
   House Energy and Commerce Committee, offered statements of resigned disappointment.
   "This is fantastic news," said Ian Bowles, the secretary of environmental affairs for
   Massachusetts, the state that had petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to control
   the emissions from cars and trucks, which represent slightly less than one-quarter of the
   country's total heat-trapping gases.
   The E.P.A. had argued that it had no authority to do so under the Clean Air Act, and that
   even if it did, such regulation would run afoul of other administration plans to combat
   climate change. The Supreme Court rejected those arguments.
   "You've seen the Bush administration hiding behind this argument to avoid action, and this
   puts that to rest," Mr. Bowles said.
   Pennsylvania's secretary of environmental protection, Kathleen McGinty, added, "We hope it
   means any further opposition and challenge to the legal standards will go away and we can
   get about the job of cleaning up the auto fleet and making a dent in greenhouse-gas
   pollution."
   The arguments rejected by the court have been invoked in other legal challenges, including
   a case pending in California in which auto industry trade groups argue against that state's
   law controlling carbon-dioxide emissions from cars, and one in the United States Court of
   Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where electric utilities are fighting the
   E.P.A.'s authority to regulate their emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.
   Both cases had been stayed awaiting yesterday's ruling.
   Some companies may now find new affection for proposals in Congress for a cap-and-trade
   system to aid emissions control. Under this type of system, companies that had reduced
   emissions beyond a set limit could sell credits earned by their excess reductions to
   companies that failed to meet emissions limits.
   "This flips the debate from an environment in which Congress must act if there is to be
   federal action," said Tim Profeta, the director of the Nicholas Institute for the
   Environment at Duke University, "to one in which the E.P.A. can act as soon as an
   administration friendly to the concept is in power."
   "If there is a President Clinton or President McCain," Mr. Profeta added, "he or she
   doesn't have to go to Congress to get action."
   The reaction from Capitol Hill underscored this point.
   "While I still believe Congress did not intend for the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse
   gases, the Supreme Court has made its decision and the matter is now settled," Mr. Dingell
   said in a prepared statement. "Today's ruling provides another compelling reason why
   Congress must enact, and the president must sign, comprehensive climate change
   legislation."
   Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California and a sponsor of the most stringent of the
   global-warming proposals currently before Congress, said in a statement: "This decision
   puts the wind at our back. It takes away the excuse the administration has been using for
   not taking action to deal with global-warming pollution."
   Another prod for federal action is the likelihood that California will be able to use the
   new ruling to parry legal challenges to its new law calling for a cut of nearly 30 percent
   in carbon dioxide emissions on passenger vehicles sold in the state starting in 2016. A
   dozen other states, including Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, have enacted laws
   adopting the California standard. These states are home to more than a third of the
   vehicles sold in the United States.
   But before those standards can take effect, the environmental agency must grant the states
   a waiver.
   "I am very encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision today that greenhouse gases are
   pollutants and should be regulated by the federal government," said Gov. Arnold
   Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican. "We expect the U.S. E.P.A. to move quickly now
   in granting our request for a waiver."
   The prospect of separate state and federal emissions standards is one of Detroit's worst
   nightmares.
   Walter McManus, director of automotive analysis for the Transportation Research Institute
   at the University of Michigan, argued that the environmental agency was best suited to
   regulate automotive emissions and fuel economy.
   "They are the ones who really have the expertise about fuel economy and greenhouse gases,"
   Mr. McManus said.
   Nick Bunkley contributed reporting from Detroit.
   Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
           *        Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for
   Us Site Map

   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\05-1120.pdf"

