The Supreme Court and Global Warming Part II: The Decision
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published April 3, 2007, 1:23 pm in Environmental Issues.
On November 28, 2006, I discussed the Supreme Court and global warming. At that time, the Court was just beginning to hear the case of whether or not the EPA had the right to limit the amount of emissions of automobiles. This Monday, they decided, and their decision is monumental.
The Bush administration has built its case on several things: 1) there is no proof that climate change is occurring; 2) there is no proof that emissions is causing climate change; and 3) the EPA cannot regulate all things related to climate change.
The Supreme Court's new decision effectively says that all of these things are wrong. The EPA has the obligation, in fact, to protect the environment. Therefore, it must do all it can to maintain safe levels of all pollutants, including emissions from factories and our automobiles. This specific case is about emissions of carbon dioxide from automobiles, and the majority opinion said that the EPA must regulate emissions unless they determine "that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change." If they can't do that, then they must explain why they cannot determine that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change.
This statement does a few things, too. First, it disregards the argument that climate change does not exist. Yep, it completely sidesteps that issue by assuming that it's true. It doesn't explain why it's true or how the court knows it's true, but they certainly assume it. Therefore, the argument that climate change doesn't exist is completely ruled out. The EPA can't make the case that climate change isn't proven anymore.
Second, the statement says that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases in order to protect against climate change. If they do not, they must provide justification for why they cannot determine that greenhouse gases contribute. What the Court is looking for here is scientific evidence. They can't just say that the proof is not convincing. What proof exists is quite convincing to a heck of a lot of people, so the EPA must effectively prove that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change. If they can't do that, then they have two choices: first, they can conduct studies that scientifically demonstrate that greenhouse gases may or may not contribute to the problem. Or they can regulate emissions. That's it. If they can't demonstrate that greenhouse gases do not contribute to the problem, then they have to demonstrate that the entire matter is undecided or they have to regulate it.
And that's it. That's their only option. They cannot now choose to regulate emissions.
But this decision has far-reaching impacts. Basically, it charges the EPA with the protection of the environment. If the scientific community agrees that a specific issue is an environmental hazard, then the EPA must regulate it. This charge means that the EPA must regulate factories; they must regulate airplane emissions; they must regulate everything that harms the environment, from tanks to military weapons, to Hummers, to EV1s, to Priuses. If anything harms the environment, the EPA must step in to solve the problem.
What does this mean for us?
More lawsuits, first of all. Expect California and other states to begin suing the EPA to regulate emissions. Expect cities to begin suing the EPA as well as neighboring communities. Where I live in Houston, for example, our mayor is trying to pass a bill that will fine the neighboring polluting communities for polluting Houston itself. Yes, Houston will fine Pasadena for effectively violating an ordinance that was never passed in Pasadena. If these regulations do not pass, then the city can sue the EPA to step in. Now the EPA doesn't necessarily have jurisdiction over every possible polluting situation (such as those factories that are grandfathered in), but the step of suing will cause a stink. Yes, the pun was intended.
Then we can expect that we will pay more for services. This is a cold reality, I know, but it's one that we have to deal with if we want cleaner air. Any improvements cost money, and may cost more than money. There are arguments for why the government should allow businesses to do what they want, and these argument usually center around the basics of economics. Businesses are not altruistic enterprises but they sometimes act that way if it is in their best interest. Businesses are usually all business, to put it bluntly. If it makes sense for a business to do what it must to keep the economy going and prices low, than that benefits everyone. If things are regulated too highly, then businesses must raise prices. And raising prices may lead to fewer customers. Therefore, the business may take its production, et al. to places that are not so highly regulated. Forget the fact of outsourcing. If the EPA starts butting into absolutely everything, then it may drive our economy down.
I don't buy that, though. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I think our economy is robust enough to withstand a bit of ecological pressure. For the most part, though, I think that what is best for the ecology is best for the economy. If businesses leave to go to Mexico, it's not long before Mexico is forced to follow suit. Here's my prediction, which is based on nothing except what I see: In twenty years, nearly every country will have to adopt strict air quality standards. The Kyoto Protocol will be nothing compared to what countries will have to adopt in the future. The ecological problems will become so obvious that we will have to change our ways by finding more renewable energy sources that do not pollute. Right now, there's still some leeway because the problems are not quite so glaring. But in fifteen years, they will be. In ten years, no one will argue that climate is a problem and greenhouse gases contribute to it. No one will argue that clean alternative fuels are imperative. We will, like the Supreme Court, assume that these things are true.
And I'm glad to see that the Supreme Court made that decision. I disagree a lot with the Supreme Court. In general, I think the Court is composed of brilliant, despicable people who make the political will sound rational. But every now and then they surprise me. And they did that yesterday. God bless this good court.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 3 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment