In a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled on April 2 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility to regulate greenhouse gases. In a forum, students and professors at the University School of Law celebrated this decision because even though the decision isn’t likely to stop global warming, they said, the government is finally recognizing that global warming is really happening.
“The debate over global warming is finished,” said University law student Morgan Dethman in the forum’s opening statements.
The suit, the first global warming case ever to be heard before the Court, was brought against the EPA by the State of Massachusetts and 11 other states including Oregon. In its decision, the Court ruled against the EPA, deciding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants and that it is the responsibility of the EPA to regulate them under the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970.
“This was a huge decision,” said law student Alyssa Johl.
“Before, it was always argued that there wasn’t enough science (to rule on global warming),” added law student Amber Munger, “but in this decision they are saying that actually there is.”
Dethman, Johl and Munger are members of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program and their group, along with the International Law Society, organized the forum to analyze the significance of the decision. The forum included presentations from four University law professors and attracted about 70 students and community members.
Panelist and law professor Mary Wood agreed with the students, saying that one of the decision’s victories is the recognition of global warming by one branch of the government.
“The Supreme Court said global warming is real,” she said.
Wood, who is an expert on claims brought by states and Native American tribes against the federal government for failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, called the decision “a great victory for the states,” because it affirmed that the states have the right to bring these lawsuits.
“There’s climate change litigation pending in courts all over the nation and all over the world,” said another panelist and expert on climate change litigation, assistant professor of law Hari Osofsky.
Osofsky declared the decision a victory over the Bush administration and its reluctance to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. She cited the majority decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, which declared that the EPA “had refused to comply” with the commands in the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
The decision also stated that “while the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws.”
“As Oregonians we can be proud that our state prevailed over the Bush administration,” Osofsky said.
Panelist and adjunct professor of law Svitlana Kravchenko said that another piece of the decision’s importance is the message it sends to the new, democratic Congress that currently has a number of climate-change bills to consider.
“For Congress, the case is important because it is support for them from another branch of government,” said Kravchenko, who teaches a course on global environmental challenges.
Though the panelists said the decision is an important part of the larger effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat global warming, they agreed that the decision will likely have little material effect on decreasing carbon dioxide emissions.
“It remanded the issue back to the same recalcitrant agency…that has been dragging its feet for years,” Wood said.
Law professor John Bonine agreed.
“Basically I have this mantra,” he said: “Don’t trust the government.”
Bonine, a former associate general counsel for air quality for the EPA, said that to make real progress people should contact their congressmen and “demand strong action.”
Bonine also said that students could help the cause by getting involved in events that bring publicity to the issue.
“Students need to regain the voice they had in the 1970s,” Bonine said. “Get out in the streets and demand action. Don’t wait for the EPA. We cannot rely on the bureaucrats.”