Government Policy to Reduce Global Warming and Climate Change

GOVERMENT POLICY
...Supreme Court Rules CO2 is Under EPA Jurisdiction

Cities Have Even Formed International Alliances

US actions at the sub -national level are linked to similar efforts around the world. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (ex-R, now I) sponsored a Large Cities Climate Summit in May, 2008 drawing in chief executives from 30 world cities, including London, Los Angeles, Johannesburg and Seoul. The event spurred a commitment from former President Bill Clinton to channel loans from international banking institutions through his foundation in order to implement climate initiatives. Bloomberg also used the opportunity to advance his PlaNYC2030, an aggressive effort in policy development and planning for the City. This plan became the springboard for legislative action and federal funding support the implementation of Congestion Pricing measures within the city, modeled in part on the successful effort in London. However, as the plan eventually failed to gain approval in the New York State Legislature, the federal funding has now been reallocated to Chicago and Los Angeles for congestion reduction plans of a different nature.


JUDICIAL ACTION

During 2007, the US Supreme Court decided important cases that could also influence the outcome of future legislation. In the most important such case, Massachusetts et al v. EPA, a 5-4 decision by a sharply divided Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. At issue was the premise that CO² is an air pollutant under the environmental and health provisions of the Clean Air Act, and that as such should be brought under controls by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). States had petitioned for such action after a Clinton Administration ruled that CO² was a pollutant, but these petitions were denied by the EPA under the Bush Administration. An important component of the Court's ruling was the conclusion that the steps that Massachusetts proposed to take, while partial, are valid in light of the potential implications of global warming. As quoted in a recent decision affecting actions taken by Vermont (see below), the Court declared:

EPA overstates its case in arguing that its decision not to regulate contributes so insignificantly to petitioner's injuries…that there is no realistic possibility that the relief sought would mitigate global climate change and remedy petitioner's injuries…Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve