Clean Air News

Today, Wednesday November 29, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a landmark global warming case, Massachusetts v. EPA.  This case will decide whether the Clean Air Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the pollution that causes global warming. In Georgia the impacts of global warming could have significant impacts around the state, including sea level rise and fluctuating temperatures and weather patterns which would impact the state’s beaches, salt marshes, tourism, coastal real estate, river flow, agriculture and more.

In contrast to previous EPA legal opinions, the Bush administration has argued that EPA does not have authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate global warming pollution.  Challenging this position is a coalition of nearly 30 states, cities, and environmental organizations.  (A complete list of these petitioners, and other documents related to the case can be found by going to www.cleancarscampaign.org and clicking on “Court Action.”) 

“Action in Georgia and at the federal level is long overdue,” said Jennette Gayer, an advocate with Environment Georgia.  “Fortunately, this Supreme Court case marks the beginning of the end of the Bush administration's flawed, industry-scripted policy on global warming."

The Coalition’s legal argument is simple:

• Section 302(g) of the Clean Air Act defines an “air pollutant” to include “any chemical, substance or matter emitted into the ambient air.” CO2 and other greenhouse gases clearly meet this definition.
• Section 202(a)(1) of the Act authorizes EPA to regulate any pollutant emitted by motor vehicles that the agency determines “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
• In Section 302(h), Congress explicitly defined “welfare” to include “effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate.” So threats to the “climate” are expressly included in dangers to our “welfare.”

This decision will not only determine whether EPA has the authority to regulate global warming emissions, it also will have a direct bearing on the future of global warming tailpipe emissions standards for cars and light-trucks through impacts on other pending global warming cases.  It is important to note that vehicle emissions are the second-largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S., comprising almost 24% of U.S. GHG emissions.  The auto industry has sued California, arguing that the state’s GHG vehicle standards are illegal.  (They have also filed two parallel cases against Vermont and Rhode Island, two of the states that have adopted California’s standards.)  Under the Clean Air Act, states may decide to adopt the California tailpipe emissions standards in lieu of the federal standards, and in the future Georgia could also adopt these standards to help curb global warming effects.  The California standards require reductions of fleet-wide global warming emissions from new vehicles by 25 percent in model year 2009, rising to 30 percent in model year 2016.  Ten other states have also adopted these standards and others are poised to follow suit. If the Court rules favorably on Clean Air Act authority, the states will likely prevail. 

          
The other major climate change case affected by the supreme court’s decision is a challenge by States and environmental groups of EPA’s refusal to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants on the grounds that it lacked Clean Air Act authority to do so.  Georgia is currently considering permitting its first new coal-burning power plant in 25 years and the implications of this case could reflect on the economic viability of the plant.  This case will be deferred pending the decision in Massachusetts, which should resolve the issues in this case as well. 

Environment Georgia is a non-profit, non-partisan environmental group, through a sister organization (the United States Public Interest Research Group) they are an official Petition in the case Massachusetts v. EPA