High Court to hear case on auto pollution

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court will hear a case today brought by Massachusetts and 11 other states that contend the federal Environmental Protection Agency has ignored its legal responsibility to set limits on car and truck emissions, which scientists say are among the leading contributors to global warming.

But the EPA, the nation's top environmental guardian, said the Clean Air Act was never meant to address global warming issues, since it was first enacted in 1970 and later updated in 1990, before there was a wide range of scientific evidence about the alarming increase in temperatures around the world.

Both sides agree that the case will put what is arguably the country's most important environmental issue in the hands of the high court, say state officials and environmentalists. It also could jump-start the deadlocked federal debate on climate change.

Global warming "is the most pressing problem of our time," said Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, who helped initiate the lawsuit in 2003. "This really comes down to what kind of world do we want to leave our children. The EPA is refusing to acknowledge its authority and responsibility."

Jeffrey R. Holmstead , a former EPA assistant administrator in the Bush administration who oversaw the implementation of the Clean Air Act until mid-2005, insists "it's not the EPA's job" to monitor and regulate climate change. Holmstead, head of the environmental strategies group at the Washington law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani, said it is up to Congress and the president to set standards for carbon dioxide emissions.

"This is the biggest environmental issue we've ever faced as a country, and the idea is for the EPA to deal with it instead of the president or Congress?" he said.

At issue is the interpretation of Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, a law that gives the federal government the power to control sources of air pollution. Environmentalists have alleged that the Bush administration has systematically tried to weaken the act to benefit polluters.

The section in question states that the federal government must regulate "any air pollutant" that can "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

The states and the environmentalists say the EPA, as the chief enforcer of the Clean Air Act, is clearly responsible for regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Because cars, trucks, and power plants are the biggest producers of those emissions, they argue, the EPA must step in, set, and enforce pollution limits.

But the EPA, backed by the White House, said it is improper to regulate greenhouse gas emissions without a better understanding about global warming. The administration points to a study by the National Research Council , which advises the White House on scientific issues. The study concludes that any link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming "cannot be unequivocally established."

In 1999, environmental groups, frustrated with the Clinton administration's inaction, petitioned the EPA, urging them to regulate carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions from new vehicles. The EPA's general counsel ruled then that the Clean Air Act allows the agency to set emissions standards, but the agency did nothing with that opinion.

In August 2003, the Bush administration rejected the general counsel's opinion that the EPA could set emissions standards, leading Massachusetts and 11 other states, backed by cities and environmental groups, to sue the EPA. When the case reached the courts, the EPA's defense was twofold: It doesn't have the power to act, and if it did, there is no hard link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming or hard evidence the states are harmed by it.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the states' appeal this year and is expected to rule this spring.

The stakes are high for both sides, said David Hawkins , director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

If the Supreme Court sides with the states, "it clearly would increase pressure on the automakers to look for alternative ways" to reduce auto emissions, Hawkins said. But if the justices support the EPA, he added, "the court would be saying the current law doesn't cover this topic. That's one more reason why we need to enact a new law on climate change."

Hawkins said the high court's decision "is one important battle" in the fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, one that ultimately requires national legislation to resolve. "Even among the most stalwart opponents to global warming legislation, there is a feeling of inevitability that [tougher laws on carbon dioxide emissions] will happen," he said.

Holmstead, the former EPA official, said any decision on greenhouse gas emissions would have a major economic impact on the country. He said three-quarters of the power generated in the United States is from fossil fuels, "and 98 percent of the transportation sector is from fossil fuels."

The White House's position has been to ask all polluters for voluntary cutbacks on greenhouse gas emissions. But a Government Accountability Office report issued earlier this year found that many firms -- including power plants and manufacturers -- had failed to set specific targets on their own. Still, Bush's senior environmental adviser, James L. Connaughton , said in May that the country was on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 18 percent within six years.

Most scientists who study climate change agree that burning fossil fuels for energy and transportation creates carbon dioxide, which contributes significantly to the trend of global warming; few, though, can say specifically the effect US auto emissions have on the planet's rapidly changing climate.

Reilly said there's little question that auto pollution is perhaps the biggest contributing factor to climate change, and "we are suffering actual harm in Massachusetts and throughout the country."