Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Mass v. EPA Global Warming Case

Jonathan Adler points to a NY Times editorial that argues the Bush administration is in the wrong in the Mass. v. EPA case:

A group of 12 states, including New York and Massachusetts, is suing the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to properly do its job. These states, backed by environmental groups and scientists, say that the Clean Air Act requires the E.P.A. to impose limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by new cars. These gases are a major contributor to the “greenhouse effect” that is dangerously heating up the planet.

The Bush administration insists that the E.P.A. does not have the power to limit these gases. It argues that they are not “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. Alternatively, it contends that the court should dismiss the case because the states do not have “standing,” since they cannot show that they will be specifically harmed by the agency’s failure to regulate greenhouse gases.

A plain reading of the Clean Air Act shows that the states are right. The act says that the E.P.A. “shall” set standards for “any air pollutant” that in its judgment causes or contributes to air pollution that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The word “welfare,” the law says, includes “climate” and “weather.” The E.P.A. makes an array of specious arguments about why the act does not mean what it expressly says. But it has no right to refuse to do what Congress said it “shall” do.

Their "plain reading" argument is hard to take seriously. Do they really believe that? Remember, the act refers to "clean air" not "warm air." And is "air pollution" really at issue in the global warming debate? I understand they are desperate for some action to be taken, but it seems to have affected their reading ability. Whatever your view on the appropriate result, the interpretive issues are certainly not "plain."

No comments: