<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
h1
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<h1><b><font size=6 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:24.0pt'>Supreme
Court rules global warming exists, and EPA should protect states from it<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></h1>
<p><i><font size=3 color="#000099" face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#000099;font-style:italic'>In what may be a
landmark environmental decision, the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> Supreme Court ruled Monday
that the EPA has the legal mandate to regulate the gases that contribute to
global warming.<o:p></o:p></span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Author: Dorothy Kosich<br>
Posted: Tuesday , 03 Apr 2007 <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
text-transform:uppercase'><a
href="http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page60?oid=18999&sn=Detail">http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page60?oid=18999&sn=Detail</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;text-transform:uppercase'>RENO</span></font></st1:City><span
style='text-transform:uppercase'>, <st1:State w:st="on">NV</st1:State></span></st1:place> -
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Although
the U.S. Congress can't pass the legislation to regulate it, and the Bush
Administration refuses to admit it exists, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4
Monday that global warming is real, and that the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType
w:st="on">Commonwealth</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>
lost valuable shoreline because of its effects.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The issue was, pardon the pun, so hot, that it required one majority
and two dissenting opinions to explain it. Remember this particular case
citation: <st1:State w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:State> v. Environmental
Protection Agency (549 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
2007). Americans will be reading, interpreting and citing this one for years.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>It began as a simple question. Did the federal court of appeals have
jurisdiction to weigh in on the fight between <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:place></st1:State> and the Environmental
Protection Agency as to if EPA is legally mandated to regulate global warming?
You betcha, answered Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote in the majority
opinion of the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with
a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere," Stevens declared to a nation that refused to ratify the Kyoto
Treaty. "Calling global warming ‘the most pressing environmental
challenge of our time, a group of States, local governments and private
organizations, alleged in a petition for certiorari that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air
Act to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon
dioxide."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"Specifically, the petitions asked us to answer two questions
concerning the meaning of §202(a)(1) of the Act: whether EPA has the statutory
authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if
so, whether its stated reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the
statutes," Stevens said.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"In response, EPA supported by 10 intervening States and six trade
associations, correctly argued that we may not address those two questions
unless at least one petitioner has standing to invoke our jurisdiction under
Article II of the Constitution." The high court ruled it definitely did
have jurisdiction, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded
the case for further proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In its arguments, the EPA claimed that, contrary to the opinion of its
former general counsels, "the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to
address global climate change...and that even if the agency had the authority
to set up greenhouse gas emission standards, it would be unwise to do so at
this time."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><st1:State w:st="on"><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Massachusetts</span></font></st1:State> argued that
Congress ordered the EPA to protect <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:place></st1:State>
when Congress enacted regulations applicable to controlling emissions of air
pollutant from new motor vehicle engines. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The state asserted that the rise in sea levels associated with global
warming has already harmed and will continue to harm <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:place></st1:State>. The state contended that even
more environmental damage in yet to come because the EPA refuses to regulate
emissions contributing to global warming. As the Supreme Court concluded,
"At a minimum, therefore, EPA's refusal to regulate such emissions
contributes to <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:place></st1:State>'
injuries."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>MINORITY OPINIONS<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Chief
Justice John Roberts conceded in his dissension that global warming may
"ultimately affect nearly everyone on the planet in some potentially
adverse way, and it may be that governments have done too little to address it.
It is not a problem, however, that has escaped the attention of policymakers in
the Executive and Legislature Branches of our government, who continue to
consider regulatory, legislative, and treated-based means of addressing global
climate change."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Roberts noted that the petitioners apparently came to the courts
claiming broad injury because they really are dissatisfied with the progress of
the issue in the elected branches. Nevertheless, he specified, "aside from
a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in the petitioners' 43 standing
declarations and accompanying an inference of actual loss of <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:place></st1:State> coastal land from 20<sup>th</sup>
century global sea level increases. It is pure conjecture."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>He scolded his fellow justices, accusing them of ignoring "the
complexities of global warming, and does so by now...using the dire nature of
global warming itself as a bootstrap for finding causation and
redressability."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"In other words, do not worry that other countries will contribute
far more to global warming than will U.S. automobile emissions; someone is
bound to invent something, and places like the People's Republic of China or
India will surely require use of the new technology, regardless of cost," Roberts
declared with more than a hit of sarcasm.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In his dissenting opinion, Justice Anton Scalia adamantly declared that
he holds "that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide this case because
petitioners lack standing."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be
justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation,"
Scalia asserted, adding "This is a straight-forward administrative-law
case."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake,
this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the
reasoned judgment of the responsible agency," he concluded.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>REACTION<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Environmentalists
called the decision a big victory for the plant and a "stunning rebuke to
the Bush Administration." <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>EPA Press Secretary Jennifer Woods told the Christian Science Monitor
that the agency is reviewing the decision to determine its next course of
action.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The trade newspaper Argus Air Daily suggested that the decision
"has far wider implications for the broader energy economy and upcoming
regulation could incorporate the universe of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> carbon sources. With this 5-4
decision, the Supreme Court may have kicked down the door to greenhouse gas
regulation in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United
States</st1:place></st1:country-region> and has added to the likelihood of
broader legislative action on global warming in the near term."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Chicago-based The Heartland Institute declared that "the U.S.
Supreme Court today substituted its scientific judgment for that of USEPA
scientists. ...Once past the rhetoric, however, all the Court did was order
USEPA to issue a more ‘reasoned explanation' for its refusal to regulate
greenhouse gases."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p mce_keep=true><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>When the EPA does explain its reluctance to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions, "the Supreme Court should refrain from imposing its lay views
regarding global warming on EPA, Heartland Senior Fellow for Environmental
Policy James M. Taylor concluded.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>