Supreme Court: The EPA must regulate carbon

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court decided last week that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated by the EPA. In addition to raising the possibility of federal policy on greenhouse gases, the ruling may also empower states such as California, which has moved on its own to regulate carbon dioxide.

Ultimately, the slow march toward carbon caps and climate gas regulation in the United States is likely to run headlong into American energy habits, particularly where cars are concerned. The Wall Street Journal has an April 5 article entitled "Horsepower Nation," noting that Americans still like a lot of power in their cars, despite the rising cost of gas and greater emissions:

Car makers are getting better at using technology to squeeze out more power without decreasing fuel efficiency. But environmentalists and government regulators criticize the industry for using technology -- such as more sophisticated fuel control systems -- to boost power instead of mileage...

...Mike Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc., the nation's largest publicly traded dealership chain, says fuel efficiency has consistently ranked behind cup holders and sound systems in consumer desires over the past 20 years.

A couple thoughts come to mind at this:

1. Americans still don't grasp the full extent of the threat of global warming.
2. Public policy has to lead the market, since customers simply do not select for climate impact at the point of sale.

Update 2:38pm: the WSJ Energy Roundup has a nice summary of reactions to the Supreme Court decision.

Can one state stop global warming?

California might not be solving the problem all by itself, but it's "gambling" (as the NY Times describes it) that by being a leader in improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gases, it will create a following among other American states in the task of fighting global warming. The Times article also discusses the federal lawsuit resulting from the new California law, as the Bush administration argues that regulating carbon dioxide emissions in cars (as the legislation calls for) is equivalent to regulating fuel efficiency, the sole purview of the Federal Government.

It will require some good science to make that case to the court for the Bush Administration - nice to see that they'll use science when it suits them.