Warming to a ruling?

The Providence Journal: Whether the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices have had time to take in "An Inconvenient Truth" is anyone's guess. But they may not have needed Al Gore's filmic alarm to sense that the looming dangers of global warming demand attention. By recently agreeing to hear an important clean-air case next term, the court signaled its willingness to address one of the most contentious and complex issues of our time. The result could be one of the most significant environmental rulings in years.
A dozen states are pressing the federal government to control emissions of carbon dioxide: the chief "greenhouse" gas believed responsible for global warming. In the United States, motor vehicles cause about 50 percent of these emissions; power plants cause roughly 40 percent.
In 1999, along with environmental groups and a handful of cities (New York, e.g.), the states sued, arguing that the federal Environmental Protection Agency was required to regulate carbon dioxide. Under the Bush administration, the agency resisted, noting that the Clean Air Act did not name carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant. The states countered that carbon dioxide is harmful under the terms of the act, and thus, implicitly, must be controlled.
Split decision
Appeals-court judges split when they ruled on the case last summer. One, Judge A. Raymond Randolph, said that even if the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, it could choose not to.
The Bush administration has long resisted addressing this issue, wrongly leaving the states to take on what should be a national fight.
How the United States ultimately responds to this issue is crucial, not just for Americans but for the world. U.S. vehicles spew 45 percent of the globe's automotive carbon-dioxide emissions -- far more than our share.
The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of climate change in a significant way. Commendably, the court now seems to see the importance of this case -- and the importance of not putting it off.