Supreme Court to Hear Key Environment Case

 HYPERLINK "http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/washington/AP-Scotus-Greenhouse-Gases.html?hp&ex=1151380800&en=43ce6578058bddbf&ei=5094&partner=homepage" \t "linkWin" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/washington/AP-Scotus-Greenhouse-Gases.html?hp&ex=1151380800&en=43ce6578058bddbf&ei=5094&partner=homepage

June 26, 2006

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:19 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether
the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global
warming
< HYPERLINK "http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" \t "linkWin" http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>,
setting up what could be one of the court's most important decisions on
the environment.

A dozen states, a number of cities and various environmental groups
asked the court to take up the case after a divided lower court ruled
against them.

They argue that the Environmental Protection Agency
< HYPERLINK "http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org" \t "linkWin" http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org>
is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under
the federal Clean Air Act because as the primary ''greenhouse'' gas
causing a warming of the earth, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

The administration maintains that carbon dioxide -- unlike other
chemicals that must be controlled to assure healthy air -- is not a
pollutant under the federal clean air law, and that even if it were the
EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it.

A federal appeals court sided with the administration in a sharply
divided ruling.

One judge said the EPA's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide was contrary
to the clean air law; another said that even if the Clean Air Act gave
the EPA authority over the heat-trapping chemical, the agency could
choose not to use that authority; a third judge ruled against the suit
because, he said, the plaintiffs had no standing because they hadn't
proven harm.

Carbon dioxide, which is release when burning fossil fuels such as coal
or gasoline, is the leading so-called ''greenhouse'' gas because as it
drifts into the atmosphere it traps the earth's heat -- much like a
greenhouse. Many scientists cite growing evidence that this pollution is
warming the earth to a point of beginning to change global climate.

At the heart of the climate debate is whether carbon dioxide releases
should be controlled by emission caps on power plants and requiring
motor vehicles to become more fuel efficient, therefore burning less
fuel and producing less carbon dioxide.

President Bush, when first running for president, expressed support for
regulating carbon dioxide, but he reversed himself shortly after getting
into office -- saying he was convinced that voluntary plans to curtail
carbon were a better way to go and mandatory regulation would be too
expensive for business.

In 2003, the EPA's top lawyer concluded that the agency lacked the
authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, reversing
a legal opinion issued several years earlier by the Clinton
administration and prompting the lawsuit.

''If ever there was a case that warranted Supreme Court review this is
it,'' says Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, whose state is one
of 12 involved in the lawsuit.

In their appeal, the states argued that the case ''goes to the heart of
the EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing
environmental problem of our time'' -- the threat of global warming.

The administration countered that the EPA should not be required to
''embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain
task of addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions'' when
other, voluntary ways to address climate change are available.

In addition to Massachusetts, the states are California, Connecticut,
Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Vermont and Washington. They were joined by a number of cities including
Baltimore, New York City and Washington D.C., the Pacific island of
America Samoa, the Union of Concerned Scientists
< HYPERLINK "http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/union_of_concerned_scientists/index.html?inline=nyt-org" \t "linkWin" http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/union_of_concerned_scientists/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
Greenpeace
< HYPERLINK "http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/greenpeace/index.html?inline=nyt-org" \t "linkWin" http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/greenpeace/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
and Friends of the Earth.

The case is Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120

*****

INHOFE REACTS TO U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREEING TO HEAR CO2 CASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: MARC MORANO (202) 224-5762

June 26, 2006 MATT DEMPSEY (202) 224-9797

Washington, D.C.- Senator. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Committee on

Environment and Public Works commented on today’s announcement by the U.S. Supreme

Court to agree to hear the case of whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must

regulate carbon dioxide to fight global warming under the Clean Air Act.

“It is my hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will bring finality to this issue by rejecting this

meritless lawsuit,” Senator Inhofe said.

“For the past 30 years, Congress has addressed and legislated extensively on the highly

controversial and complex subject of global climate change. It has always been clear,

however, that the Clean Air Act was intended to regulate pollution, not emissions of carbon

dioxide.

“Unfortunately, those who have failed to impose their draconian ideology through

legislation are now trying to use the courts to overturn the will of Congress.”

Senator Inhofe has been active in climate change litigation, having most recently filed an amicus

brief earlier this year urging the dismissal of a nuisance lawsuit that was brought against

American Electric Power Co., Southern Co., Xcel Energy Inc., Cinergy Corp. and Tennessee

Valley Authority.

###