LEGISLATION Supreme Court to EPA:
"Regulate CO2 Emissions" WASHINGTON - On April 2, the Supreme Court finally ruled on the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA case, when it decided 5-4 in favor of Massachusetts et al. The ruling said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had the express authority under Section 202 of the 1990 Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including those from vehicle tailpipes. In 2003, EPA had issued a decision to not regulate tailpipe emission, rejecting a petition filed by Massachusetts, 11 other states, the District of Columbia, New York City and Baltimore. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court. The decision marks a watershed in the regulation of air pollutants by telling the Agency it could not opt out of enforcing CO2 emissions - including automobile tailpipe emissions, a major component of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The decision in the Supreme Court's first-ever case on global warming also forces EPA to re-evaluate whether its regulation of tailpipe emissions should include CO2. It also adds momentum to congressional and state efforts to address climate change.
EPA chastised The court majority decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said, "The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized, including the loss of coastal land to rising sea levels." The court emphasized the link between increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising temperatures. Federal law delegates power to EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles, but the Agency has declined to exercise that power. Stevens and his colleagues insist on action: "EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate. For example, EPA said that a number of voluntary executive branch programs already provide an effective response to the threat of global warming, and that curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect 'an inefficient, piecemeal approach' to the climate change issue." Stevens concluded his comments by scolding the administration for failing to offer a reasoned explanation for its refusal to act. "EPA's argument that the Department of Transportation sets fuel economy requirements was a non-starter. That DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities," Stevens wrote. "This was arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law."
The 'right' to pollute The Supreme Court decision and the increasing number of Democrats favoring action on climate change means that talk of CO2 regulation will accelerate. In addition, the federal government is moving to pressure EPA to act, as well as develop a nationwide carbon cap and trading system in an effort to fight global warming, similar to those in other countries.
Carbon Trading BasicsWhile environmentalists are split on the idea of "trading" the right to pollute, many economists favor the system as a means to provide incentives to businesses to first find inexpensive ways of eliminating carbon dioxide (CO2) through conservation, then pursuing more costly alternatives, such as designing and installing new technology to remove carbon from smokestacks.
The trading system is designed to create a measurable cost for polluting the atmosphere, which then gives businesses an incentive to stop polluting. Currently, CO2 emissions - the principal greenhouse gas - does not cost businesses or consumers, so few seek to minimize their emissions. A carbon cap and trading system would require those who exceed the cap to buy credits from the market from those who earned credits by keeping their emissions below the cap limits.
The system gradually increases the costs for businesses, as Congress tightens the gas caps, in an attempt to curb global warming. Over time, as all the easiest and cheapest ways of saving energy and reducing emissions are exhausted, the cost of obtaining a permit to release carbon rises and creates a bigger incentive for businesses to find technological breakthroughs that would minimize their carbon loads.Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), chastised EPA for not setting national pollutant standards for cars and for not allowing states such as California to implement their own standards. She says she will call EPA officials before the committee this month.
She pledged to pressure EPA Administrator Steve Johnson to act when he appeared before the EPW committee on April 24. "I will challenge him to use the power EPA has had all along to address global warming and has refused to use. The Supreme Court has left this administration with no excuses for further delay."
In a statement following the Supreme Court decision, Johnson said EPA will holding a public hearing on a request to regulate CO2 emissions from California and accept public comments. Ten other states have adopted the California regulations, which could require automakers to cut CO2 emissions by about 25 percent in a decade. Automakers have filed several lawsuits seeking to overturn those regulations; the first such challenge under way in U.S. District Court is in Burlington, VT.
Winners and losers The trading systems under consideration on both sides of Congress would create winners and losers among businesses - depending on how much they use the fossil fuels that create CO2 as a byproduct when they are burned. Power plants, especially coal-fired ones, and heavy manufacturers would be hit the hardest because they are the biggest users of coal, oil and natural gas. Critics of carbon caps argue that heavy industries, such as steel, automobile, chemicals and aluminum makers, would relocate to China and India - countries that do not regulate carbon. Power plants, however, would not be able to relocate easily, as their customers and distribution networks necessarily lie within U.S. borders. Thus, critics argue, the cost of complying with the mandate would fall heavily on customers, who would have to pay much higher rates for electricity to cover the cost of buying carbon permits or otherwise installing the technology needed to cut carbon emissions. By contrast, some industries would make big money under a carbon-trading system, and their support is already present in Washington. Farmers would be among the biggest beneficiaries because they can plant trees and manage their crops and agricultural land in a way that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and makes them net carbon reducers eligible to credits. "More and more farmers want to get on board because they see the potential of helping the environment, plus adding another source of farm income, through use of conservation tillage practices," says Dave Miller of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation. Carbon trading has also attracted a few big carbon-producing businesses, including Ford Motor Co., Dow Corning, DuPont, BP America, Alcoa, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, American Electric Power, Safeway and Amtrak. These companies contend that carbon regulation and trading is necessary and inevitable, and the United States must get moving if it is to be a leader rather than a follower in green technologies. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers will turn to Congress: "There needs to be a national, economy-wide approach to addressing greenhouse gases," says Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance. Ultimately, the ruling, court cases and dialogue could affect whether automakers are required to build higher-mileage vehicles that emit less carbon dioxide. Time will tell.
(Sources: Supreme
Court, Washington
Post, San Francisco
Chronicle, Detroit
News) 
