EDITORIAL – Court divided on global warming

With its first case addressing global warming, Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection… With its first case addressing global warming, Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court might set new precedent on the federal government’s authority to regulate environmental and health damage.

Massachusetts is one of 12 states, along with three cities, that are challenging the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide in automobile emissions. The plaintiffs, represented by Assistant Attorney General James Milkey of Massachusetts, claim that carbon dioxide emissions from cars are the principle cause of man-made greenhouse gases, which leads directly to global warming. In its defense, the EPA is arguing that the Clean Air Act does not classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and therefore that it does not have the authority to regulate the gas, according to The New York Times.

The case is a deeply intertwined one, as the Court must first decide whether or not the plaintiffs had legal standing to pursue their lawsuit. In federal court, plaintiffs are required to establish standing to sue by proving that there is an injury that can be traced to the defendant’s behavior – in this case, not regulating carbon dioxide emissions – and that the effects of this behavior will be relieved by the action that the lawsuit requests.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday and appeared to be deeply divided over the case. The divisions were mainly along party lines, with conservative justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito siding with the EPA and the Bush administration’s policy, and liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens supporting the plaintiffs. Notorious swing voter Anthony Kennedy will most likely be the deciding vote.

The conservative justices argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing, stating that regulating emissions from new cars and trucks would not adequately address global climate change, claiming that the 6 percent of greenhouse emissions caused by American cars did not present an imminent threat.

The liberal judges argued the opposite, claiming that any little reduction to the greenhouse effect will reduce a global degree of loss.

Unfortunately, this case has turned into a battle of politics and ideology, when it really shouldn’t be. It is absurd to argue that the greenhouse effect doesn’t present an imminent threat. There is a general consensus that greenhouse emissions are correlated with global warming, and scientific studies have proven that global warming could have dangerous effects in the future.

The Bush administration clearly is trying to protect the automobile companies here, deciding that lower-priced cars take priority over complete destruction of the environment. And the sad thing is that automobile companies are capable of and, in many cases, have already developed fuel-efficient alternatives.

Another sad reality is that the actions of the United States affect the rest of the world. Unfortunately, our country is responsible for a large percentage of greenhouse emissions, yet we are one of the only countries that is not taking responsibility for these emissions. The United States has yet to sign the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty that is attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States has responsibility to help protect our globe, and hopefully the Supreme Court will set politics aside and act in the best interests of our planet – while we still have one.