Top court rules for environment

Hell has frozen over – and global warming is to blame.

In a 5-4 ruling yesterday, the… Hell has frozen over – and global warming is to blame.

In a 5-4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court decided that greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide are, indeed, detrimental to the environment under the Clean Air Act, according to the Associated Press. Adding insult to injury, the court also reproached the Bush Administration for neglecting to take action to reduce emissions.

This is a landmark for the Supreme Court, as it is the first time they’ve ruled on the issue of climate change.

In the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens reprimanded the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to proactively regulate emissions.

“A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere,” Stevens said, according to the AP. “EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.”

It has been well established by the scientific community that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are harming our environment, causing global warming. Even for skeptics of global warming, a more visible form of air pollution, smog, is caused by carbon dioxide and sunlight. It’s had to argue that smog doesn’t exist, and now it seems that more and more people are throwing their support behind finding ways to reverse the effects of global warming.

We’re happy that Bush and the EPA are finally being held accountable for their inaction. We’re also pleased to see the government finally taking substantial steps in the right direction when it comes to addressing environmental issues.

The Supreme Court ruling could mean many things for the environment. Certainly it means big changes for the automobile industry, which is going to have to follow increasingly strict emissions standards beginning as early as the 2009 model year – which will hit showrooms next year.

In response to the court’s decision, automobile manufacturers are calling for an “economy-wide approach to global warming” because “no single industry could bear the burden alone,” according to the AP. This isn’t an impossible task. Japan cut down on emissions while still underselling our cars – and their economy didn’t suffer any detrimental blows. Japanese car companies are among the highest selling car companies in the world.

The court’s decision also means that Congress is likely to pursue serious global warming reduction legislation. New Mexico Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, wants President Bush “to work with Congress to enact a mandatory cap-and-trade proposal and other programs to reduce our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions,” according to the AP.

Reducing greenhouse gases and working to protect our planet should not a political issue, but rather a matter of self-preservation. By encouraging industries to work together in the best interest of humankind, the Supreme Court has acted as a responsible and independent arm of the government and shown that matters of such importance should not be decided based on the lobbying powers of an industry or on the reluctance of those in power to do what’s right.