implications of Court decision on GHGs and climate change
Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 08:52:02 PM PDT
As you've probably seen (if not: www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/washington/02cnd-scotus.html?hp ), on Monday the Supreme Court decided that carbon dioxide is a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. The media coverage so far has largely focused on the specific case at hand (relating to automobile mpg standards), but the decision will have enormous ramifications beyond cars.
As you've probably seen (if not: www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/washington/02cnd-scotus.html?hp ), on Monday the Supreme Court decided that carbon dioxide is a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. The media coverage so far has largely focused on the specific case at hand (relating to automobile mpg standards), but the decision will have enormous ramifications beyond cars.
At work, we spent much of the day brainstorming future implications (below), since this could be a game-changer for what we do. I'm curious what people in the outside world think, though, given that I'm not a lawyer, am an optimist, and live in a climate-change bubble. Let me know if you disagree, have heard other scuttlebutt, seen articles to the contrary, etc.
- In the long-term (~10 years), the courts will probably force EPA to regulate carbon dioxide. Over the next few years, certain states (NY, CA, etc) and environmental organizations like NRDC will litigate, with the argument that the Supreme Court says that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that it causes harm, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate harmful pollutants, ergo...
- The near certainty of regulation will affect the Administration's ability to negotiate a post-Kyoto agreement regulating greenhouse gases. The U.S. can no longer say that we're not going to play unless China and India do, etc. Everyone now knows that we're going to eventually regulate carbon dioxide. Europe and Japan can agree upon an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, with the assumption that the courts will probably force EPA to implement a reduction similar to that taken on by other developed countries.
- The decision will also affect prospects for current proposed federal legislation (McCain-Lieberman, etc). Congress would rather design its own system (with pork, etc) than leave it to EPA to implement. It's also politically easier to vote for carbon restrictions with the Supreme Court behind you. In addition, industry and utilities are now more likely to come to the table -- it's better for them to influence the regulatory structure rather than have it forced upon them by EPA.
Please post your thoughts about the implications of the decision.
Permalink | 5 comments