« Corrections | Main | Chechnya swears in a new pro-Russian president »

Supreme Court ruling says EPA can set emissions limits

The Supreme Court decided Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to set greenhouse gas limits, according to the Los Angeles Times (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070403/NEWS01/704030379).
It also decided that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant subject to regulation under EPA law. The decision was 5-4, and was seen as a rebuke to the Bush administration, who said federal authorities don't have the power to regulate emissions.
This helped knock down a barrier on several states that were trying to set emission standards.
According to the Clean Air Act of 1970, the EPA shall regulate the emission of "any air pollutant" that is likely "to endanger public health or welfare." According to Justice Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, "welfare" can be seen broadly in terms of negative of effects on climate and weather.
According to the decision, the EPA is not forced to set emissions, but must provide clear evidence that carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change. Lawsuits can be brought against the EPA if it fails to do so.
Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the dissenting opinion, said that Congress and the president have the power to resolve this issue, not the Court.
According to the New York Times, a representative of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the main industry trade group, said that he is looking forward to working with Congress and the administration in adressing the issue. The EPA will now be part of this process.

I really liked the L.A. Times article. It was very thorough and provided a lot of context for the decision. It looked at several opinions from lawmakers in different sections of government and also industry leaders. I did think the lead was to much conjecture and had no action in it. The second graph was probably a better lead, getting right into the decision. The lead would be repeated and insinuated throughout the article. I liked that the article provided the background of the Clean Air Act. I also thought it provided a good deal of quotes from people on both sides. I liked how most of the opinions were pushed off until the end though, leaving the beginning of the story for the most factual information. I also liked the fact they described the basis of the court case and the parties involved, something the NY Times dodged. The NY Times article also left out a lot of the dissenting opinion, which I did not think was even-handed.