In order to be an "air pollutant” under the Act’s definition, the substance or matter [being] emitted into . . .the ambient air must also meet the first half of the definition namely, it must be an “air pollution agent or combination of such agents.” The Court simply pretends this half of the definition does not exist.
In other words, regulating the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, which is alleged to be causing global climate change, is not
akin to regulating the concentration of some substance that is polluting the air.
No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.
The majority, led by Justice Stevens, ignored some of the critical standing issues (e.g. how does the Court resolve the global warming problem in favor of the Petitioners, or, how have the Petitioners been individually harmed by the EPA's refusal to regulate?)
Chalk this decision up to judicial activism again. Rather than arriving at a reasonable interpretation of the statute, the majority has simply used Al Gore science to order an Executive Agency to regulate a farce.
Update: 2:20 PM - Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, argues that "The harms associated with climate change are seriousand well recognized." He continues: "A well-documented rise in global temperatures hascoincided with a significant increase in the concentrationof carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientistsbelieve the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding theescape of reflected heat."
Doesn't this fall under the "political question" doctrine that allows the Court to refuse to adjudicate issues of a political nature. cf. Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849).
The case is Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. [Click title to link to decision]
1 comment:
See, here's the thing: I don't think global warming is a political issue at all. The questions of whether or not climate change is happening and what is causing it are scientific questions, not political ones. These are not matters of political ideology, but rather scientific issues that can be empirically tested and verified or falsified.
Now, what should (or shouldn't) be done as a result of climate change is a political question. If the court were ruling on that, it would be an entirely different thing.
Sam Estabrooks
Co-chair, Campus Greens
Post a Comment