Global Warming In the News

Faced with the federal government's indifference, California has aggressively led the nation in reducing greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a lawsuit that ultimately will strengthen or stifle the state's efforts.

At issue is whether the federal Environmental Protection Agency must regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act. California, Massachusetts and 10 other states bringing the lawsuit, Massachusetts vs. EPA, have strong evidence to compel the EPA to adopt restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, the chief contributor to global warming. Whether a conservative Supreme Court will buy it is another matter.

Congress, however, shouldn't be a bystander. On its own, it could settle the matter by amending the Clean Air Act to explicitly require the EPA to act.

While admitting that global warming is a ``serious problem,'' President Bush claims his administration is hamstrung because it lacks authority under the Clean Air Act to step in. That law specifically mentions industrial pollutants, like sulfur dioxide and ozone, but not carbon dioxide, which is produced in nature and is also created by autos, factories and power plants.

Congress last revised the 43-year-old law in 1990, before evidence of global warming became irrefutable. However, the law's scope is broad. The EPA ``shall'' regulate any pollutant from cars or trucks ``which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' The public's welfare includes impacts on climate and weather.

The EPA need only read a 2004 study by the National Academy of Sciences for evidence of an impending crisis. It predicts that, unless emissions are reduced, the Sierra snowpack, which is critical to California's water supply, would shrink between 29 percent and 70 percent by century's end.

A lot is riding on the outcome of Massachusetts vs. EPA. Four years ago, the California Legislature passed a law requiring automakers to cut carbon-dioxide emissions substantially, starting in 2009 for cars and 2016 for trucks. The auto industry has sued to stop the law.

In September, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the nation's most far-reaching effort to cap greenhouse emissions. It calls for reducing industrial carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent in 14 years and assumes that the state has the power to regulate auto emissions, too.

If the Supreme Court rules that the Clean Air Act doesn't cover carbon dioxide, it would undermine California's argument that it has a legal basis for passing its own laws. California could claim partial victory if the court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant but left it up to the EPA and, by default, the states, to decide what to do about it.

A new Democrat-controlled Congress need not wait until the court's decision next summer. It should amend the Clean Air Act on its own -- and force Bush, who's been hiding behind a legal subterfuge, to sign or veto it.

That's why Congress should act quickly. A good omen: California Sen. Barbara Boxer will soon replace Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., as chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Boxer calls global warming ``the greatest challenge of our generation.'' Inhofe calls it a ``hoax.''