The US Supreme Court ruled (5 – 4) that the EPA must regulate emissions from cars, and also took the EPA to task for giving lame reasons why it should NOT regulate emissions. The decision rendered in the case MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. is an important decision in the ongoing denial by the US Government that humans are impacting global warming, and that CO2 emissions ought to be reduced by 50 – 80% by 2050.

The case might be a landmark decision for citizens, States and cities that have been urging the Federal Government to enforce the Clean Air Act, and go beyond politics in dealing with the fact that the Earth is heating up, and that human activity is main contributor.

In a NYTimes article, Justices Rule Against Bush Administration on Emissions it was reported that the decision takes the EPA to task, and insists that use scientific evidence to show that greenhouse gases are NOT contributing to climate change, or indicate why it can’t do so.

I recommend that you go to the Court’s ruling, and puruse it and note the firmness of the language by the Majority. Here is a sampling from the report:

“A well-documented rise in global temperatures hascoincided with a significant increase in the concentrationof carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientistsbelieve the two trends are related. For when carbon diox-ide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding theescape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—themost important species—of a “greenhouse gas.”

“Calling global warming “the most pressing environ-mental challenge of our time,”a group of States,local governments, and private organizations, alleged in a petition for certiorari that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.”

As stated in the ruling, the petitioners asked the court to answer two questions:

1. Whether EPA has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles?
2. If so, whether its stated reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statute?

The court said yes to the first quesiton, and no the second. The decision provides and perhaps creates a hopeful climate for climate change and global warming advocates, and presents a problem to the great denyers of global warming.

In the published ruling, the Court reviewed the history of the monitoring of greenhouse gases, and showed how the study of the atmosphere has progressed from the time when the Clean Air Act was first put into law. If you are looking for a very concise review of the history of climate change, and scientific results, go the the opinion’s report.