The supreme court ruled today that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from automobiles. Justice John Paul Stevens, reading the majority opinion said that Co2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and that the EPA has shirked its duty by not regulating it.

In fact the court went so far as saying that the so called “laundry list” of reasons the EPA has given for why it has not regulated emissions so far are invalid and that it must come up with some better ones if it wants to continue to do nothing. This ruling gives Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, the District of Columbia, Baltimore, New York City and a dozen environmental groups a legal basis for suing the EPA. This is significant because in order to attain this standing the plaintiffs had to convince the court that there is an injury that can be traced to the defendantâ€™s behavior, and that the injury will be relieved by the action the lawsuit seeks. In essence this presents a strong legal case for global warming as a harming agent.

“EPAâ€™s steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is bothâ€œactualâ€ and â€œimminent,â€ (via, pdf of ruling) wrote Justice Stevens. Because the EPA did nothing to curtail this danger (as it is required to under the Clean Air Act) “â€œIts action was therefore arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” said Stevens.

To be clear the ruling does not say that green house gasses are a danger because they cause global warming, but it did say that the EPA can only choose not to regulate them if it can prove that they do not contribute to global warming. If the EPA does try and show that greenhouse gas emissions from cars do not contribute to global warming it will be in the uncomfortable position of going against the majority of the worlds scientists.

Several friend of the court briefings were issued that suggested the EPA was guilty of trying to present more doubt about global warming than there really is. This doesn’t surprise me considering the White House has systematically lied about climate change, going so far as to change or edit scientific papers to make them fit the view espoused by the administration.

Senator John Kerry said; â€œItâ€™s an historic moment when the Supreme Court has to step in to protect the environment from the Bush administration.â€ (via)

Which is deliciously ironic considering he is trying to block the nations first offshore wind farm in his own state. Hypocrisy aside he is not alone in his views. All of the front runners (Democratic and Republican) for the 2008 presidential election accept man made global warming and all have plans to do something to fix it. They are all far from the Bush administration’s view that the science is still not complete on global warming. A majority of Americans also feels that global warming is a serious problem.

So where does this leave us? The ruling means that California will have an easier time of implementing its plan to limit Co2 from cars, and the EPA will have a much harder time dodging its duties to protect the environment. With all major candidates for president ready to at least talk about fighting global warming, and some ready to tackle the problem head on, and the majority of Americans ready to do something about it, I feel that meaningful change has started to happen. It’s about damn time.