Sierra Club Statement on Supreme Court's Global Warming Decision
April 2, 2007

(Washington, DC)--In a huge victory in the fight against global warming the Supreme Court today issued a ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA decisively rejecting the Bush administration's inaction on global warming. In a 5-4 vote, the High Court sided with the Sierra Club, 12 states, 3
cities, and the other petitioners in the case by agreeing that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants can be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Additionally, in a separate 5-4 ruling, the Justices wrote that the EPA cannot refuse to regulate these pollutants for political reasons. The Court gave its overwhelming stamp of approval to states that are taking action to fight global warming. At a time when automakers are suing states for taking this step forward, the Supreme Court stated clearly that states have the right to protect their citizens and the environment. It also provides momentum for efforts in Congress to reduce vehicle emissions.

"Today's ruling is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. "The ruling is a total rejection of the Bush administration's refusal to use its existing authority to meet the challenge posed by global warming. It also sends a clear signal to the markets that the future lies not in the dirty, outdated technologies of yesterday, but in the clean energy solutions that will fuel the economy of tomorrow. It also vindicates the leadership that California and other states have taken on this issue."

In the majority opinion, the Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants meet the definition of "air pollutant[s]" under the plain language of the CAA. This ruling, in and of itself, does not compel EPA to issue regulations limiting the emissions of global warming pollutants. However, the CAA states that EPA "shall regulate" any air pollutant "reasonably anticipated" to endanger "public health or welfare," which includes effects upon "climate or weather." Since EPA incorrectly argued that carbon dioxide was not an air pollutant under the CAA, it refused to even issue an endangerment determination. Today's ruling compels EPA to issue such a determination.

The Court's secondary ruling compels EPA to follow the CAA provision that states that EPA "shall regulate" any air pollutant that it determines is reasonably anticipated to pose a danger to public health or welfare. EPA had made a wide variety of specious arguments claiming why, even if they
had the authority to regulate global warming pollutants, it could simply choose not to do so. Today's ruling compels EPA to adhere to the unambiguous language found in the CAA. The CAA already affords the agency wide latitude in its rulemaking process--specifically stating that any
potential regulations must meet tests for economic and technological feasibility.

Environmental Defense v. Duke

The second decision issue today, also in an environmental case, upheld EPA's view that changes in power plants that may contribute to air pollution must be done only with a permit if there is an annual increase in emissions. The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit Court's view that the permit requirement applied only if there is an hourly increase in emissions. The case was Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy Corp. (05-848). The decision was written by Justice Souter. The vote was unanimous, although Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate concurring opinion.

-----
For a complete set of documents related to Mass v. EPA, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/0316.asp

back to top