Supreme Court Ruling on Massachusetts Wins Challenge to EPA

As announced yesterday by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, the EPA has to reconsider its regulation of green house gases. Why? Because Massachusetts and other states are likely to be harmed by climate change.

Justice Stephens wrote the majority opinion, which concluded that "given EPA’s failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, 'contributes' to Massachusetts’ injuries. "

According to the Environmental News Service, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said: "EPA can no longer hide behind the fiction that it lacks any regulatory authority to address the problem of global warming. . . .The agency cannot refuse to use its existing authority to regulate dangerous substances simply because it disagrees that such regulation would be a good idea."

The decision will undoubtedly have significant implications on related cases. Sheila Watt-Cloutier and 62 other Inuit petitioners were heard earlier in March in the hearings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on their petition against the United States on climate change impacts to the Arctic peoples. The Center for International Environmental Law, one of the NGOs supporting the Inuits in their human rights litigation, has links to the case documents and interviews with the petitioners.

A temporary injunction against California's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions may be reviewed in light of the decision. For an interesting, if controversial, documentary on the California controversy, see "Who killed the Electric Car?"

This decision brings us a step closer to ensuring the rights of Inuits to life, livelihood, and a healthy environment -- including access to water -- and our human right to a healthy environment.