Global warming debate goes to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided Wednesday over what role the federal government should play in regulating carbon dioxide emissions from new cars.

The major environmental case pits states against the Bush administration over damage claims blamed on global warming."Isn't it intuitively reasonable to suppose that with some reduction of the greenhouse gases, there will be some reduction of the ensuing damage or the ensuing climate change which causes the damage?" asked Justice David Souter. "Isn't that fair?"

"There's something of a consensus on warming, but not a consensus on how much is attributable to human activity," countered Justice Antonin Scalia. Carbon dioxide - the principal greenhouse gas - drifts into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. At issue is whether the Environmental Protection Agency is required by law to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from newly manufactured motor vehicles.

The debate centers on whether carbon dioxide constitutes a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act. EPA officials argue it is not and that the agency alone has the discretion to decide such matters.

The oil and gas industry supports the EPA's position. In the late 1990s, the Clinton administration concluded the EPA has the regulatory authority to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but the Bush administration in 2003 reversed that position, prompting the current legal fight.

Twelve states, led by Massachusetts, have sued the Bush administration, demanding the executive branch take the lead in curtailing potentially harmful emissions. An important precedent at stake.

- CNN