‘

On Nov. 29, the Supreme Court first began a series of court hearings on Massachusetts v. The Environmental Agency (E.P.A.). 12 states, including New York and Massachusetts, are suing the Agency for failing to comply with the Clean Air Act. The Act requires the E.P.A. to impose limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are often emitted by new cars. These gases are significantly contribute to the ‘greenhouse effect’ that is dangerously heating up the planet.

However, E.P.A. maintains that the Act does not consider carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as air pollutants. Thus, this does not give it power to regulate the gases, or in the long-term, reduce global warming. Furthermore, the dozen states, three cities, and numerous scientists and agencies that have challenged the E.P.A. in federal court do not have a legal standing to pursue the lawsuit.

For the E.P.A. to be held accountable, any plaintiff must prove that there is an injury that can be traced to the defendant’s behavior so that it will be relieved by the action the lawsuit requests. However, the case can be made simpler by just reading the Act literally. The Act says that the E.P.A. ‘shall’ set standards for ‘any air pollutant’ that in its judgment causes or contributes to air pollution that ‘may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’ The word ‘welfare’ encompasses climate and weather. The E.P.A. has already proclaimed that even if the states prove that they have legal standing, it will not take any action to follow the guidelines mandated by the Act.

Hence, the Supreme Court must now require the E.P.A. to reconsider its position. The E.P.A.’s decision looks poorly on how the the government views global warming. It has no reasonable line of thinking through which it has come to this decision. The E.P.A. claims that there is too much ‘scientific uncertainty’ for it to worry about global warming. However, the reverse has been proven by NASA scientists, as well as other environmental agencies in the world.

The government’s decision to undermine the states’ legal power also mocks their vested interest in protecting their own land and citizens. Let us hope that the Supreme Court can look beyond this state v. federal issue to consider the betterment of citizens worldwide. After all, global warming is a global problem.

‘