Issues: Global Warming

Global warming pollution is nearing its day in America's highest court. A brief filed on August 31 by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and many others signifies the next step towards oral arguments before the Supreme Court, expected this November or December.

The case, Massachusetts v. EPA, will determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide -- the main cause of global warming -- from motor vehicles. It will also rule on whether EPA can avoid such regulation in favor of "policy preferences," such as voluntary action. NRDC and the co-petitioners will argue that EPA does have this authority.

"When it comes to global warming pollution, this is just plain English and common sense," said David Doniger, policy director for NRDC's Climate Center, one of the petitioners. "Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and curbing the pollution that causes global warming is EPA's job under the Clean Air Act."

NRDC is joined in the suit by Sierra Club, 12 states (CA, CT, IL, MA, ME, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT and WA), Baltimore, New York City, Washington, D.C., and numerous other environmental groups and non-profits. Fourteen "friend of the court" briefs were also filed on our behalf, from an array of scientists, former EPA administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, electric power companies, state and local governments, and others. (See below

Bush Administration's Claims Do Not Hold Up

Under current administration policy, the EPA claims heat-trapping emissions like carbon dioxide don't meet the Clean Air Act definition of "air pollutant" and cannot be curbed under that law. The EPA position reverses the agency's earlier interpretation of the law, and does not hold up under scrutiny:

• The Clean Air Act says an "air pollutant" is any "physical, chemical, biological, [or] radioactive substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air."



• The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate any pollutant that the agency determines to "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The Act specifically defines "welfare" to include adverse effects on "weather" and "climate."

For full information, read the briefs below:

• Massachusetts v. EPA, Brief for the Petitioners

"Friend of the Court" Briefs:

• The Alaska Inter-tribal Council, Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments and Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands



• Madeleine K. Albright



• Arizona, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota and Wisconsin



• Aspen Skiiing Company



• Calpine Corporation



• Climate Scientists



• U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, International Municipal Lawyers Association, the City of Seattle, the City of Albuquerque, the City of Burlington, and the City and County of San Francisco



• State of Delaware



• Entergy Coorporation



• Former EPA Administrators Carol M. Browner, William K. Reilly, Douglas M. Costle and Russell E. Train



• National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., Church World Service and National Catholic Rural Life Conference



• North Coast Rivers Alliance, Desert Protection Society, Westside Association to Save Agriculture, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Save Medicine Lake Coalition, Klamath Forest Alliance, San Joaquin Audubon Society and North Cascades Conservation Council



• Ocean and Coastal Conservation Interests



• Wildlife Conservation Interests

last revised 8.31.06