High court tells Bush: Take action on global warming

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Bush administration's policy of inaction on global warming and ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

The 5-4 decision takes the first step toward national limits on emissions from cars, trucks and power plants.

Until now, the administration has maintained that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks authority to set emissions rules because air-pollution laws don't cover greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Scientists have linked the rise in the emissions of greenhouse gases to a steady and potentially catastrophic rise in air temperatures.

A group of New England and Pacific Coast states, including Washington, challenged the Bush administration in court for its failure to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. That 1970s law says the EPA must regulate "any air pollutant" that is likely to endanger "public health or welfare." The law defines public welfare to include effects on the climate or weather.

"Because greenhouse gases fit well within the ... act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant,' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles," Justice John Paul Stevens said for the five-justice majority. "EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change" or if it has "some reasonable explanation" as to why it cannot regulate them.

The high court specifically rejected the administration's "laundry list of reasons not to regulate."

Stevens' opinion was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, saying the court should have left the issue of global warming to be resolved by Congress and the president. He said the lawsuit should have been thrown out because the states had no standing to sue the EPA. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito agreed with him.

Separately, Scalia said the court should have upheld the EPA's judgment that new auto regulations were not warranted.

"The court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified," Scalia said, but "this court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."

Roberts, Thomas and Alito also signed on to this dissent.

The ruling is a victory for the state of Washington, which joined the lawsuit, as well as the city of Seattle and several University of Washington professors, who filed court briefs arguing the EPA was wrong to claim it couldn't regulate carbon dioxide.

Both Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire and Attorney General Rob McKenna cheered the ruling.

"This is a crucial decision for Washington," McKenna said in a statement. "Washington joined this case because it directly addresses our state's concerns about the regulation of [carbon-dioxide] emissions from cars."

Regionally, the decision could add political fuel to efforts by West Coast states to cut carbon dioxide. But there will likely be few immediate effects on existing laws or regulations. The exception could be state laws that clamp down on tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide.

In 2005, Washington adopted such a law, modeled on a California law that the auto industry is now challenging in court. Washington has also been part of the Western Regional Climate Initiative, a partnership with Oregon, California, Arizona and New Mexico to address climate-change issues.

Automobile makers have said they are producing more fuel-efficient vehicles, but that federal limits on emissions would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Reacting to the court's decision, Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the industry wanted to work "constructively" with Congress and the administration on a "national ... economywide approach to addressing greenhouse gases."

Environmentalists hailed the case's outcome.

"Today's ruling is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director. It "sends a clear signal to the markets that the future lies not in the dirty, outdated technologies of yesterday, but in the clean energy solutions that will fuel the economy of tomorrow."

Jennifer Wood, a spokeswoman for EPA, said the agency was "reviewing the court's decision to determine the appropriate course of action."

House Democrats have vowed to pass global-warming legislation by July 4, and Senate leaders are working on their version of the bill. But it is unclear what kind of plan they will adopt.

Senate leaders said they will call EPA officials before the Environment and Public Works Committee this month to ask them how they plan to deal with the court's decision.

In another environmental case decided Monday, the court unanimously supported a decades-old initiative aimed at forcing power plants to install pollution-control equipment.

The case, Environmental Defense et al v. Duke Energy Corp. et al, involved a movement launched during the Clinton administration to force companies to install pollution-control equipment in aging coal-fired power plants. More than two dozen plants in the South and the Midwest still have cases pending.

Material from Seattle Times staff reporter Warren Cornwall and The Washington Post is included in this report.