by Ajay Medsker

Created on: April 03, 2007   Last Updated: April 27, 2007

In what has been described as "one of the most important environmental decisions made in years, " the Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 vote that the Clean Air Act of 2005 does in fact authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the tailpipe emissions produced by automobiles. Following this, Justice John Paul Stevens gave top EPA officials a choice: either stop sidestepping their responsibility' and do their jobs', or provide proof that the gaseous byproducts of the emissions do not contribute to any change in climate.

This decision comes in direct opposition of the expressed views of the Bush Administration (not to mention almost half the Court), which states that it does not see automobile emissions as particularly harmful to the environment, and thus not worth regulating. This is in spite of various statistics that indicate up to a fourth of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are the result of tailpipe emissions. No one was particularly surprised to hear them publicly denounce the ruling.
The Justices who support the ruling (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) claim that the EPA has a responsibility to monitor and regulate potentially harmful substances being pumped into the ozone layer, and that this includes those produced by automobile runoff.
Up until now, the EPA has refused to monitor such things, citing lack of manpower, lack of finances, and other various reasons to excuse themselves from doing their job. Indeed, this should not be surprising to everybody. It's no secret that top officials in the EPA have recently gone from putting their faith in scientists who understand these effects to relying on nonscientific personnel (i.e. policy makers with the minimum scientific knowledge required to work alongside real scientists).
Does anybody remember March of 2005, when nine states sued the EPA because their mercury emission regulations did not follow the parameters of the Clean Air Act? The prosecutors claimed the policies were influenced by political agendas, and sure enough, it was revealed that Philip Cooney (former chief of staff/White House Council of Environmental Quality) had deliberately altered documents concerning the affects of climate change before they were released to the public.
Interestingly enough, Cooney is currently employed by gas conglomerate Exxon-Mobile.
But that's beside the point. The point is, it's about time the Supreme Court came to a decision regarding this matter, and I'm glad they finally have. What remains to be seen is whether the EPA will be now forced to come up with a policy to regulate the tailpipe emissions, or sidestep its duties yet again by relying on facts provided by nonscientific personnel.
And a helpful tip for those looking to go the extra mile: a switch to the hybrid car is definitely worth it, at least in terms of the 30-50% fewer greenhouse gases they emit then the average gas guzzler.

Learn more about this author, Ajay Medsker.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.