The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-4 decision that the Environmental Protection Agency not only has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but also that it has neglected to do so.
Some critics say the EPA has skated around the global warming issue since the Bush administration came to power.
"There is no denying the fact that President Bush has the worst environmental record ever," said Abby Rubley, field director for Environment Michigan. "The EPA has acted on behalf of his administration."
The case became a national issue after the state of Massachusetts attempted to raise its tailpipe emission standards under the Clean Air Act.
The auto industry complained to the federal government and the EPA stated the Clean Air Act didn't include greenhouse gasses, therefore, states were not allowed to regulate carbon dioxide.
Massachusetts and several other states then sued the EPA for not including carbon dioxide in the act.
Under the court's ruling, states now have the power to set emission standards higher than what's produced by many American cars.
The EPA disagreed with the court's decision, citing the Bush administration's commitment to controlling greenhouse gasses.
"The Bush administration has unparalleled financial, international and domestic commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Jennifer Wood, a press secretary for the EPA, wrote in a statement, adding that the EPA is currently reviewing the court's decision to determine the appropriate course of action.
Michigan has favored the EPA's position throughout the trial, forecasting economic despair for the auto industry, Rubley said.
Walter McManus, an auto industry analyst for the University of Michigan, said auto manufacturers will not be harmed.
"The studies that we have done show the Big Three (automakers) would be better off with increased fuel efficiency," he said. "The vehicles that we make in Michigan, especially the big ones, have no market internationally."
Foreign automakers have succeeded because they build vehicles with higher fuel efficiencies, McManus said. When domestic auto producers chose to market large trucks and sport utility vehicles, they lost much of the international market, he added.
"We would be better off building vehicles with broader markets," he said. "They could be better off, and we could be better off in Michigan."
The auto industry isn't the only sector affected by the court's ruling.
Any company or manufacturer that deals with greenhouse gasses will have to adapt to the new regulations. Although only a few states plan to adopt the stronger emission standards immediately, Rubley said more will follow.
"Other states were waiting for a decision, and will now move to action" she said.
Terry Link, MSU's director of campus sustainability, said it would be hard to predict the fallout of the decision.
"The automobile companies need to get real; it is in their long-term interest to make fuel efficient automobiles," he said. "This could trigger all sorts of things."
Whatever happens, environmentalists are looking at the decision as a step toward victory in the fight against global warming.
"This is probably the most crucial global warming decision the courts have made," Rubley said. "They actually stepped up to the plate."
