Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on an air pollution case that… Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on an air pollution case that points to a shift in the political arena. In a unanimous decision the Court ruled against Duke Energy Corp. and reversed the decision of the fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals decision invalidated a number of Environmental Protection Agency regulations, and actually favored Duke Energy Corp. with Justice David Souter calling the appeals court’s decision “too far a stretch.”

The Supreme Court decision offers promise to enforcing the installment of pollution control equipment on coal-fired power plants, a federal clean air initiative.

The lawsuit against Duke Energy Corp. is part of a larger enforcement effort brought forth by the Clinton Administration aimed at reducing air pollution. Many of the other utility companies have settled outside of court; others remain unresolved and they face fines for past air pollution.

This federal clean air initiative, which includes substantial pollution control regulations on power plants, will reduce the emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, sulfur dioxide is the leading cause of acid rain in the United States. In addition, they state that “roughly two thirds of sulfur dioxide emissions come from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels, like coal.”

The presence of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, both considered greenhouse gases in the environment, is increasing at an alarming rate. Scientists have attributed the rise in global climate to the growing greenhouse gas emissions.

Global warming and the environment, as important political issues, warrant immediate action and have been brought to the attention of the public. Admittedly, response to this call to action has been slow, but there has been progress.

As easy as it is for me to make fun of former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic Party’s poster boy turned burly Oscar-winning environmentalist, he appears to have predicted interest in this political trend. His movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” makes known the effects of global climate change and the immediate need for action.

Many pundits have pointed out the recent shift to Democratic control of Congress may contribute to the increasing interest in protecting the environment. With that said, I do not think regulating emissions of greenhouse gases should ever become an issue with two sides.

The notion that Republicans are anti-environment and Democratics are pro-environment is ill-conceived. I don’t think that a shift in Congressional control will make a difference in public opinion, and I do not think that Supreme Court decisions alone will make a difference. Time and education will continue to make the difference, and political institutions will only enhance environmental protection.

If we are pitting the parties against one another, it seems very fair to point out that the current Supreme Court is largely conservative. Republican presidents appointed seven of the nine sitting justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts. This Court was the first to hear a global warming case and issued the recent decision protecting EPA regulations.

Politicians, Supreme Court justices and the public are realizing the effects of air pollution and greenhouse gases. But the environment is not only a Democratic cause. Republicans, including a majority of Supreme Court justices, are concerned about the future of the environment. It is time, not party affiliation, that has raised awareness of air pollution and the permanent damage to the environment.

The environment should not be an issue that pits parties against each other. We all live on the same planet, breath the same air and face the same potentially polluted future.

E-mail Kimberly at [email protected].