Only days ago, E.P.A. Administrator Stephen L. Johnson told Congress that he had shelved his agency's own findings that greenhouse gases are a danger to the public. Instead, he would initiate "a lengthy public debate" in order to comply with the Supreme Court ruling that forced the Bush Administration to examine the problem.
Yesterday, a coalition of states, cities and environmental groups took its case to federal court. Led by Massachusetts, the group is seeking to force the E.P.A. to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars and trucks--or prove that such regulation is unnecessary. In other words, the yak-fest is over.
At least, it will be if the coalition succeeds in court.
The chances for success? Read after the jump.
One year ago, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that the Bush Administration's claim that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases was nonsense. It ordered the E.P.A. to study whether these gases cause global warming and therefore human harm. If so, the E.P.A. was to regulate them under the Clean Air Act . The Agency's own advisory board recommended that yes, greenhouse gases cause global warming. Ignoring these recommendations, Johnson opened the debate--essentially to hand the whole issue off to the next administration.
The coalition suing the E.P.A. is led by James Milkey, chief of environmental protection at the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. Milkey said, "[The EPA] has the duty to regulate, not just the authority."
Joining Massachusetts are 16 other states, the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, the City Solicitor of Baltimore and 13 environmental groups. Even if they succeed, the Bush Administration could keep the issue tied up in appeals through the end of its term, essentially shelving it at enormous tax-payer expense.
Sources: New York Times, Boston Globe, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office
