Post by contini on Apr 2, 2007 22:04:37 GMT -5
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in its first ever case on climate change, and it's a victory for California and other states that have tougher clean air regulations than those recommended by the government. The highest court in the land basically ruled, in a 5 to 4 decision, that the Bush administration needs to do more to curb emissions from new cars and trucks in order to slow global warming. The ruling has profound implications here in California.
The Bush administration argued the Environmental Protection Agency did not have the authority to regulate the greenhouse gases emitted from motor vehicles. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Dan Kammen, Ph.D., UCB Energy & Resources Group: "It's a big victory for the environment and for California."
The high court ruled the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act.
Dan Kammen, Ph.D.: "It authorizes the EPA to really do what everyone thought it could do all along, and that was to develop the rules, the timetables, the requirements to regulate greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide in particular."
The White House said it would now reconsider its policy.
Dana Perino, White House Deputy Press Secretary: "We questioned whether we did have the legal authority. Now the Supreme Court has settled that matter for us."
The ruling is expected to give California a firm legal foundation to impose even stricter emission standards.
Jerry Brown, (D) California Attorney General: "This Supreme Court case makes very clear that California has the right to regulate greenhouse gases."
Attorney General Jerry Brown sees the ruling as a green light to force automakers to produce cleaner vehicles any way they want.
Jerry Brown: "What comes out of the tailpipe is what we're concerned about. How they reduce what comes out of the tailpipe is up to them."
The Pacific Legal Foundation had sided with the auto industry and asked the attorney general to back out of the lawsuit. It now says the high court's majority went too far.
Reed Hopper, Pacific Legal Foundation: "The Supreme Court just stepped out of its traditional role as deciders of the law and usurped the power of Congress to make policy determinations for the United States."
While Hopper continues to question the science on global warming, the Supreme Court apparently does not.
Dan Kammen: "The majority held that global warming is real. We have to act, and in fact the EPA has so far failed to do its duty, and has not yet acted."
The high court said the EPA must act unless it offers a good scientific reason not to.
The Bush administration argued the Environmental Protection Agency did not have the authority to regulate the greenhouse gases emitted from motor vehicles. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Dan Kammen, Ph.D., UCB Energy & Resources Group: "It's a big victory for the environment and for California."
The high court ruled the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act.
Dan Kammen, Ph.D.: "It authorizes the EPA to really do what everyone thought it could do all along, and that was to develop the rules, the timetables, the requirements to regulate greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide in particular."
The White House said it would now reconsider its policy.
Dana Perino, White House Deputy Press Secretary: "We questioned whether we did have the legal authority. Now the Supreme Court has settled that matter for us."
The ruling is expected to give California a firm legal foundation to impose even stricter emission standards.
Jerry Brown, (D) California Attorney General: "This Supreme Court case makes very clear that California has the right to regulate greenhouse gases."
Attorney General Jerry Brown sees the ruling as a green light to force automakers to produce cleaner vehicles any way they want.
Jerry Brown: "What comes out of the tailpipe is what we're concerned about. How they reduce what comes out of the tailpipe is up to them."
The Pacific Legal Foundation had sided with the auto industry and asked the attorney general to back out of the lawsuit. It now says the high court's majority went too far.
Reed Hopper, Pacific Legal Foundation: "The Supreme Court just stepped out of its traditional role as deciders of the law and usurped the power of Congress to make policy determinations for the United States."
While Hopper continues to question the science on global warming, the Supreme Court apparently does not.
Dan Kammen: "The majority held that global warming is real. We have to act, and in fact the EPA has so far failed to do its duty, and has not yet acted."
The high court said the EPA must act unless it offers a good scientific reason not to.
