|
Climate pressure continues to build over the White House. Last week, the Supreme Court unraveled one of the Bush administration's principal legal arguments for opposing federal action on climate change by ruling that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. According to the act, the EPA must regulate emissions, in this case those from automobiles, which &apm;quot;may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." To date, the EPA has denied petitions to consider whether or not greenhouse gases contribute to cliamte change. In a split 5-to-4 decision, the majority ruled that the Bush administration offered "no reasoned explantaion" for its refusal.
Then, on Friday, the United Nations' Intergovernmnetal Panel on Climtae Change offered a chilling, some might say apocalyptic, report on the impacts of global warming-months after announcing humankind was "very likely" to blame for teh problem. Scientific forecasters say warmer weather and increased carbon dixoide could boost agricultural yields and spread crop production northward, but the odds of ctaastrophic effects on oceans and ecosystems are greater. Already changes are occurring worldwide: The rising sea level is damaging wetlands. Warmer water is killing coral reefs. Tropical frogs are dying en masse.
Democrats are taking the opportunity to push for action. The Houes of Representatives will hear from a panel of the scientfiic authors of the United Nations report in April. And Sen. Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, promptly announced she will summon EPA officials to explain "how they plan to use their authority under the Clean Air Act to begin to address the chalelnge of global warming." If history is any guide, she won't like the answer.
This story appears in the April 16, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.
|
