State Attorneys General, Cities, Environmental Groups
Ask the Supreme Court to Review Federal Global Warming Lawsuit

BOSTON - Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly today joined with 11 other states, three major metropolitan cities, one island government and several prominent environmental groups in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal appeals court case involving federal regulation of greenhouse gas pollutants, which cause global warming.

The coalition, led by Massachusetts, is asking the court to review a decision issued last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA. That ruling let stand the Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.

AG Reilly and the other parties argue in today’s petition that “this case goes to the heart of EPA’s statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time.” The petition goes on to argue that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is at odds with Supreme Court precedent on statutory interpretation, because it allowed EPA to refuse to regulate greenhouse gases based on policy considerations outside the scope of the Clean Air Act.

“Delay has serious potential consequences,” the petition states. “Given that air pollutants associated with climate change are accumulating in the atmosphere at an alarming rate, the window of opportunity in which we can mitigate the dangers of climate change is rapidly closing.”

Government studies and reports confirm that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that accumulate in the atmosphere are causing global warming and other significant climatic changes. In 2005, the National Academies of Science from 11 countries, including the United States, issued a joint statement confirming that “the threat of climate change is real and increasing.”

“If ever there was a case that warranted Supreme Court review, this is it, “ Massachusetts AG Tom Reilly said. “We owe it to our children and grandchildren to address the problem of global warming.”

"Global warming is one the biggest threats facing the planet and we cannot delay action," California AG Bill Lockyer said. "Left unchecked, it can cause devastation to our economy, public health, natural resources. It is time for the Environmental Protection Agency to step up and fulfill its responsibility to fight this problem."

"Only the nation’s highest court can force EPA to comply with federal environmental law and curb growing greenhouses gas pollution – forestalling a future of soaring temperatures, rampant disease, extreme weather, rising sea levels and eroding shoreline,” Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal said. “Scientific proof of global warming grows more overwhelming each day. The EPA is ignoring mounting evidence – much it from its own and other federal studies – of a coming climate catastrophe. Time is not on our side.”

“Global warming threatens all aspects of the environment in Illinois, from adversely affecting our $8 billion agriculture industry to causing heat waves, droughts and flooding,” Illinois AG Lisa Madigan said. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court not to ignore this vital issue, for our sake and the sake of future generations of Illinoisans.”

"Scientists are clear about the danger that global warming poses to public health and the environment," New Jersey AG Zulima V. Farber said. "What also is clear, and what was affirmed by two prior EPA general counsel, is that EPA has authority to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. We cannot permit EPA to walk away from its responsibility in this critical area."

"Once again, the Bush administration has favored big business over the welfare of average Americans, “New Mexico AG Patricia Madrid said. “EPA has chosen the profit margins of powerful autmobile manufacturers and dealers over the health and welfare of the public. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to assess the scientific evidence of danger to the public health and welfare. Instead, EPA has chosen to ignore science and listen to big business. That is not what Congress intended or what the Clean Air Act requires and we cannot let such disregard for the laws protecting our fragile environment go unchallenged."

"It is inexcusable the EPA has not required carbon dioxide reductions from automobiles,” New York AG Eliot Spitzer said. “This is a major source of pollution that undermines public health, the environment and the economy. Led by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we will continue to press for meaningful action to address this very serious problem."

"Abbott and Costello would have had a field day lampooning our so-called Environmental 'Protection' Agency," Rhode Island AG Patrick C. Lynch said. "Unfortunately, EPA's failure to do its job is no laughing matter. Despite a wealth of hard scientific evidence to the contrary, EPA insists that carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant that poses a real threat to the health, safety, and economy of the United States. The EPA cannot simply pick and choose which Congressional directives it will follow and which pollutants it will regulate."

"Vermont is doing its part to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” Vermont AG William H. Sorrell said. “It's a shame that we need the Supreme Court to order EPA to do the same."

The current case began in 1999, when various environmental groups filed an administrative “rulemaking petition” requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. That petition was still pending in 2002 when President Bush declared that global warming must be addressed, yet failed to act. EPA formalized that position in August of 2003, when the agency denied the pending rulemaking petition. At that time, EPA also stated that – as a policy matter – it would not set motor vehicle emission standards even if it had authority. In October of 2003, 12 states, three cities, and virtually every major environmental group challenged EPA’s decision.

On July 15, the federal appeals court for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 to let the EPA’s current position on greenhouse gas pollutants stand. In August, AG Reilly joined with five other states and District of Columbia in asking the full bench of the appeals court for the D.C. Circuit hear the case. The court denied that request with a 4-3 decision, leading up to today’s filing with the Supreme Court.

Today’s petition also argues that EPA was incorrect in concluding that the Clean Air Act did not provide EPA statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The petition states that the Supreme Court’s review “is necessary to prevent the agency from continuing to claim that a decision of this Court prevents it from taking regulatory action to address climate change.”

In addition to Massachusetts, joining today’s petition are: the states of California (acting by and through Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Air Resources Board, and Attorney General Bill Lockyer), Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, the District of Columbia, American Samoa Government, New York City, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technology Assessment, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Massachusetts Assistant Attorneys General James R. Milkey, William L. Pardee, and Carol Iancu, all of AG Reilly’s Environmental Protection Division, are handling this case. Georgetown Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling also played a major role in drafting today’s petition.

# # #