By Wendy Wang
Issue: Does EPA hold the authority to regulate air pollutants emitted by cars and manufacturing companies? The state of Massachusetts argues that some level or percentage (about 6 percent) ought to be caped on air pollutants from new vehicles. MA was

asked to prove "standing" for such a petition. One can't go to court to force a change for the public good. The courts can only help relieve a specific harm. So Massachusetts has to prove that carbon dioxide from vehicles will lead to harm specific to Massachusetts and that if the EPA regulates greenhouse gases in vehicles, Massachusetts will be better off. MA argued that the harm is not linear, rather it is gradual and will reveal itself over time. They cite the following: That Congress never wanted greenhouse gases regulated by the EPA, so the agency would be overstepping its authority to try to regulate them. That even if it did have the authority, it wouldn't regulate them and shouldn't be compelled to giving the scientific uncertainty that proves imminent harm to the general public or its affect on global warming. Finally, that the states bringing this case have no business doing so because they aren't being harmed in any specific way, they may never be harmed, and they wouldn't be helped if they won their case. They say that it is not a priority for them, citing limited resources. EPA felt that MA ought to prove the imminence of impending harm this will cause. Argument The justices were skeptical of the government's argument that they made their determination that they do not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that they are making their "considerations" based on parts of standards. As Breyer said, to only take part of considerations makes them bad lawyers. MA supported Breyer's argument that the government was focused primarily on the uncertainties, and ignoring the proven certainties of harm the greenhouse gases will cause. The State was unable to give the justices a satisfactory answer to when harm will take into affect. The State could not say that the 6 percent reduction of greenhouses gases it was asking for will guarantee in 6 percent improvement in the environment. The EPA was not able to response to the justices' satisfaction that even a 6 percent reduction would be helpful, stating that to put such a cap on the United States would not guarantee that the rest of the world would follow suit. Stevens dismissed that portion of the argument and pressed for an answer that even a small reduction would be for the long term good of the environment.