What's behind the greenhouse-gas suit before the Supreme Court?
This issue is extremely complex; however, a few recent articles are worth reading if interested.
A Q&A story found at nature.com gives an excellent background on the issue, including notes on similar actions in other countries. Read it before taking in some stories on both sides.
Urging a victory for the EPA is Marlo Lewis Jr. In his essay for RenewAmerica you'll find the familiar conservative buzz words: consumer choice, less competition, more expensive, government authority and hopeless cause.
I couldn't find such an engaging point of view from a single source in support of the lawsuit, so here are stories about the amicus briefs filed on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and marine conservation advocates.
Don't feel you have to read all at once. This story is going to be around for a long time.
[Source: nature.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rwdmtparkingonly 11:20AM (9/11/2006)
It's pretty ironic that conservatives, who cry all the time about state's rights, don't want states to have the right to regulate CO2 emissions. Fortunately the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, especially Scalia, have more moral consistency than their pundit peers; they may side with the states on this.
Reply
loikll 1:17PM (9/11/2006)
How does this issue have anything to do with States' Rights? From what I've seen (admittedly just skimming) it seems the states are trying to goad the federal government into something; the feds aren't limiting anything states can do. After all, California enforces famously tough emissions laws. California is a state, last I checked.
In any case, all it takes is a bill passed in Congress clarifying that, yep, CO2 is one of the things they intend the EPA to regulate, and this is a dead issue. Maybe you should lobby your congressman.
Reply
rwdmtparkingonly 4:10PM (9/11/2006)
Actually I mistook this case for Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Witherspoon; Witherspoon is the state’s rights case. California’s legislature enacted a law requiring the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to reduce CO2 emissions in the state (http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/020722.asp). The regulations implemented by CARB are now being challenged, in Witherspoon, by automakers, even though the regulations will only affect California and other states that choose to use California’s emissions standards (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/06/28/california_global_warming/print.html).
California has the right to regulate air pollutants (CA is the only state with the right to set standards, but other states can adopt the exact CA standards), so there is a strong legal argument that California can regulate CO2, even though it will be a fuel economy regulation in practice. I don’t support Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the case this blog post is about) to the extent that it seeks to force the EPA to regulate CO2 nationally. However, the California specific statute in Witherspoon is also being challenged by conservatives, and in that case conservatives need to remember that the principle of state’s rights doesn’t depend on whether they agree with the state.
Reply
loikll 5:16PM (9/11/2006)
Ah I think I get it. But I'd see how a conservative could argue that States' Rights is NOT sufficient grounds to support CA. Obviously California does not have the power to regulate the corporate-wide fleet economy of a Michigan-based company making cars in Tenneessee and selling them in Florida. Hence CAFE power lies with the Feds and not states. That much makes sense.
Normally CA could regulate what does occur within its own borders; a states' rights supporter would agree. The trick here is that due to California's size and the specific nature of this problem, if they regulated CO2 it would de facto place a nationwide regulation on the Michigan-based automakers. (Or is that true? I dunno)
I'll hasten to add I can certainly imagine automakers making this claim in court, even if it's NOT true.
But if true, I think the automakers might have a point. You can't be so doctrinaire about "States Rights" that you ignore practical reality, when the result is that California would impose an unwanted policy on the other 49 states -- they have rights, too.
California might be generating a financial externality costly to the rest of the nation. If Texas passed a law calling for all its trash to be dumped across the border in Oklahoma, "States Rights" wouldn't be an adequate defence for Texas.
Hmm, I think I can see both sides to this actually, maybe hammering it out in court is the best way to go. But I think the States Rights rhetoric would be a bit overblown.
Reply