 |
 |
|
Projects
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Supreme Court Finds Bush Admin Illegally Resisted Efforts To Control Global Warming
04/02/2007 International Center for Technology Assessment
660 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Suite 302, Washington, DC 20003,
(202) 547-9359 fax (202) 547-9429
For Immediate Release Contacts:
April 2, 2007 Joseph Mendelson Legal Director (703) 244-1724
George Kimbrell, Staff Attorney, (571)-527-8618
Charles Margulis, California Office, (510) -697-0615
Supreme Court Finds that Bush Administration EPA Illegally Resisted Efforts to
Regulate Global Warming Pollution
Historic Court Ruling Recognizes Right to Sue
Because of Injuries Caused by Global Warming
Courts Decision Yields Victory for ICTA After Eight Year Legal Battle
Washington, DC - In an historic environmental ruling and strong rebuke of the Bush Administration, the United States Supreme Court has determined that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated the Clean Air Act when it refused a legal request seeking regulation of global warming pollution emissions. In determining that the Bush administration EPA had acted illegally, the Court also recognized that injuries associated with global warming - such as rising sea levels and exacerbated air pollution - create sufficient standing to sue in courts to address climate change. The ruling in Massachusetts et al. v. E.P.A (Docket No. 05-1120), which ICTA originated in 1999, is being hailed as one of the most important environmental cases in decades and one that will fundamentally alter the nations political discourse on global warming.
"The Court recognized that the debate over global warming has ended and that states and individuals are suffering from global warming injuries and impacts right now," stated Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director for the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and a co-counsel in the case.
"For over six years, the Bush Administration has denied its legal responsibility to fight global warming and sat idly by while real damage has occurred," Mendelson added. "It is clear that the legal tools exist right now to address the issue and Congress and EPA should move quickly to ensure that the U.S. starts reducing its greenhouse gas emissions now," Mendelson concluded.
In the decision, a 5-4 ruling in favor of the petitioners authored by Justice Stevens, the Court specifically found that:
The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. (Slip Op. at 18).
The governments own objective assessment of the relevant science, and the strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, among other impacts, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in the winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and ferocity of weather events. (Syllabus at 3, Slip Op. at 17-19).
That the injuries from climate change are widely shared did not mean that petitioners lacked the right to sue in Federal court. (Slip Op. at 19).
The Court held that the EPAs interpretation of the CAA was contrary to law and that the agency did not have a roving license to ignore statutory text. (Slip Op. at 30).
The case began in October 1999 when ICTA filed a legal petition with the EPA seeking regulatory action under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that are released from motor vehicles. In an August 2003 administrative ruling, EPA denied the ICTA legal petition by stating that the agency had no legal authority to control global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. In response, in the fall of 2003, twelve states, several cities and over a dozen environmental organizations joined forces to file a legal challenge in federal court. The states and other organizations leading the legal challenge include Massachusetts, California, New York, ICTA, Sierra Club and NRDC.
As a result of todays decision, the EPA will be compelled to revisit the 1999 ICTA petition and determine what steps it will take to address global warming emissions from both motor vehicle and stationary sources. Currently, such sources account for over 60 percent of the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
***
The Supreme Courts opinion, the case chronology and legal briefs are available at:
http://www.icta.org/global/warm.cfm (Click on Legal Actions)
Original legal petition available at http://www.icta.org/doc/ghgpet2.pdf
from global warming injuries and impacts right now, stated Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director for the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and a co-counsel in the case.
"For over six years, the Bush Administration has denied its legal responsibility to fight global warming and sat idly by while real damage has occurred," Mendelson added. "It is clear that the legal tools exist right now to address the issue and Congress and EPA should move quickly to ensure that the U.S. starts reducing its greenhouse gas emissions now," Mendelson concluded.
In the decision, a 5-4 ruling in favor of the petitioners authored by Justice Stevens, the Court specifically found that:
The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. (Slip Op. at 18).
The governments own objective assessment of the relevant science, and the strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, among other impacts, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in the winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and ferocity of weather events. (Syllabus at 3, Slip Op. at 17-19).
That the injuries from climate change are widely shared did not mean that petitioners lacked the right to sue in Federal court. (Slip Op. at 19).
The Court held that the EPAs interpretation of the CAA was contrary to law and that the agency did not have a roving license to ignore statutory text. (Slip Op. at 30).
The case began in October 1999 when ICTA filed a legal petition with the EPA seeking regulatory action under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that are released from motor vehicles. In an August 2003 administrative ruling, EPA denied the ICTA legal petition by stating that the agency had no legal authority to control global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. In response, in the fall of 2003, twelve states, several cities and over a dozen environmental organizations joined forces to file a legal challenge in federal court. The states and other organizations leading the legal challenge include Massachusetts, California, New York, ICTA, Sierra Club and NRDC.
As a result of todays decision, the EPA will be compelled to revisit the 1999 ICTA petition and determine what steps it will take to address global warming emissions from both motor vehicle and stationary sources. Currently, such sources account for over 60 percent of the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
***
The Supreme Courts opinion, the case chronology and legal briefs are available at:
http://www.icta.org/global/warm.cfm (Click on Legal Actions)
Original legal petition available at http://www.icta.org/doc/ghgpet2.pdf
|
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||