As the new home of OSPIRG's environmental work, Environment Oregon can be contacted regarding this news release.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—A
split three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals today failed to answer
whether the U.S. EPA has authority to regulate pollution that causes global
warming. Today's ruling, in a 2-1 decision involving three conflicting opinions,
denied a petition by more than a dozen environmental groups, including OSPIRG's
federal policy office, as well as 12 states, including Oregon, and three cities,
challenging the agency's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide pollution from cars
and trucks.
"We are disappointed
that the court didn't agree with our position that the Clean Air Act requires
EPA to limit global warming pollution from cars and trucks," said Jeremiah
Baumann, clean energy advocate for OSPIRG. "But the court also didn't address
whether EPA has the authority to regulate this pollution, which leaves Oregon
free to do so."
Global warming pollution,
particularly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, such as the gasoline
in cars, is the leading contributor to global warming. This pollution builds
up in the atmosphere, trapping heat like a blanket. Several states have passed
legislation requiring cars and trucks to reduce their emissions of this pollution
and Oregon is considering taking the same step. The court's decision today leaves
states free to continue to pursue this regulation.
Only one of the three judges
addressed the question of whether global warming pollutants are "air pollutants"
within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, a designation that would give EPA authority
to regulate the pollution. That judge, David Tatel, wrote that global warming
pollutants "plainly fall within the meaning of 'air pollutant'."
The other two judges, who
cast the votes against the states, cities, and environmental groups who were
the petitioners, did not address the question of EPA's authority. One judge
wrote that he would defer to EPA's "policy" reasons for regulating
global warming. The other judge wrote that the petitioners lack "standing"
to sue over global warming pollution. He wrote that global warming is "harmful
to humanity at large" and that no one may sue in such circumstances.
The petitioners, who also
include the cities of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont,
the District of Columbia, and the cities of New York and Baltimore, are likely
to appeal the decision to the full 11-member U.S. Court of Appeals or to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
OSPIRG is the statewide
nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest advocacy group. With 33,000 member statewide,
OSPIRG advocate for environmental protections, consumers' rights in the marketplace,
and good-government reforms.
