Chicago Tribune Editorial - Time to act on auto emissions

Chicago Tribune Editorial - Time to act on auto emissions
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published April 9, 2007

The Bush administration normally is not timid when it comes to assertions of executive authority. It usually subscribes to the notion that almost anything the president wants to do, he is entitled to do. So it was more than a little strange to hear it singing a different tune on the subject of the greenhouse gases produced by automobiles. Not only did the Environmental Protection Agency lack the desire to regulate these emissions, it argued, it lacked the statutory power to act even if it wanted to.

But last week, it got a withering retort from the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the agency ample authority to combat global warming by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that cars generate. And the court went further, concluding that the agency has an affirmative obligation to take such action or provide persuasive reasons not to.

It was a sound decision, both as a matter of law and a matter of policy. And while the verdict does not actually compel the administration to finally address a growing problem it has long avoided, it does give the president political cover to start doing what needs to be done. If he declines to act to improve auto fuel economy, on the other hand, he may find Congress newly emboldened to take the lead.

The decision stemmed from a lawsuit by the state of Massachusetts, along with other states and several environmental groups, which argued that greenhouse gases are raising global temperatures, and that they all stood to suffer tangible harms as a result -- in the Bay State's case, through the loss of coastal land and property due to rising sea levels.

Dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. insisted that the harm the state would suffer was "pure conjecture," and that therefore, the case should have been dismissed. But the majority recognized that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere creates dangers to Massachusetts that, far from being a distant fantasy, are "both actual and imminent."

The Clean Air Act, said the court, requires the EPA to regulate any air pollutant that may harm "public health and welfare" -- and defines those terms to include effects on "weather" and "climate." The agency, it says, may not shirk this duty by simply ignoring the law.

In a separate dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia scoffed at the notion that carbon dioxide can be described as an air pollutant. Given the vast potential consequences of global warming, that's a position that borders on the absurd.

The administration may still avoid taking steps to boost the fuel economy of American cars. But as the court explained, the EPA "can avoid taking action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."

But it can no longer do that without inviting public ridicule and congressional intervention. In light of all the evidence, the debate on whether these emissions pose a serious risk is over. The administration should recognize as much and start addressing the danger.