Bush castigado por las emisiones de CO2

Leo con satisfacción en el periódico New York Times que el gobierno de George W. Bush ha sido reprobado por el Tribunal Supremo de EE.UU.

El gobierno de Bush dictaminó que la Agencia de Protección Medioambiental (EPA) no tenía competencias para regular las emisiones de CO₂ estadounidense. Ante esta falta de acción, 12 estados y 13 grupos ecologistas presentaron una demanda ante en tribunal Supremo, la cual se ha fallado hoy. Esta sentencia es la primera que implica altas instancias judiciales en el tema de la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero.

Parece que, poco a poco y algo tarde, las cosas se están poniendo en su sitio ...

Como siempre, os pego la notícia completa aquí abajo (que también podeis leer en el periódico de El País aquí):

Justices Rule Against White House on Emissions

By David Stout
April 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 2 — The Supreme Court ruled today, in what amounts to a rebuke of the Bush administration, that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from automobile emissions, and that it has shirked its duty in not doing so.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court found today that the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes the E.P.A. to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, contrary to the E.P.A.’s contention, and that if the agency still insists that it does not want to regulate those emissions, it must give better reasons than the “laundry list” of invalid considerations it has offered so far.

Today’s decision is surely not the last word in the continuing debate over the effects of global warming and what can, or should, be done about it. But it was still highly significant in at least two respects.

First, the majority brushed aside the Bush administration’s assertion that the Clean Air Act does not treat carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as “pollutants,” and thus does not give the E.P.A. the authority to regulate them.

Secondly, the five justices declared that contrary to the administration, Massachusetts and the 11 other states and various other plaintiffs that sued the E.P.A. do indeed have legal standing to pursue their suit. In order to establish standing, a federal court plaintiff must show that there is an injury that can be traced to the defendant’s behavior, and that the injury will be relieved by the action the lawsuit seeks.

“E.P.A.’s steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both ‘actual’ and ‘imminent,’ ” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, citing two standards linked to standing.

“E.P.A. identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail E.P.A.’s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants,” Justice Stevens wrote. Instead, the agency resorted to “impermissible considerations” in rejecting the plaintiffs’ request to regulate those admissions, the justice wrote.

“Its action was therefore ‘arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,’ ” Justice Stevens went on. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined his decision.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The chief justice said his dissent “involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem.” Rather, he wrote, the kind of dispute in this case is better resolved by Congress and the executive branch rather than the courts.

The majority did not declare that the E.P.A. must find that greenhouse gases are a danger because they contribute to global warming. But the justices said the agency can escape its regulatory duties “only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change, or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.”

The tone of the majority opinion seemed to suggest that the E.P.A. would face a high barrier in arguing that greenhouse gases are not harmful. Justice Stevens alluded extensively to scientific findings in recent years attesting to the dangers of the gases, and he noted that the plaintiffs’ affidavits detailing those dangers were not contested.

The majority dismissed the E.P.A.’s argument that even if it did have authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, it could exercise its judgment in declining to do so. “Put another way, the use of the word ‘judgment’ is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text,” the decision stated.

Nor was the majority persuaded by the defendants’ arguments that even if carbon dioxide emissions do contribute to global warming, they are but a small part of the worldwide problem. “Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell swoop, but instead whittle away over time, refining their approach as circumstances change and they develop a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed,” the majority wrote.

Final word or not, today’s decision was bound to please environmentalist groups. “The Supreme Court has reaffirmed what we have been saying all along: the Clean Air Act gives E.P.A. authority to fight global warming,” said Howard Fox, a lawyer for Earthjustice, who argued the case before a federal appeals court.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said; “It’s an historic moment when the Supreme Court has to step in to protect the environment from the Bush administration.”

Besides Massachusetts, the plaintiff-states were California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Other plaintiffs included the District of Columbia, Baltimore, New York City and a dozen environmental groups.

Several automobile trade groups sided with the E.P.A., as did the states of Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas and Utah.