This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
There is a reason why today is called Earth Day, and not something a little more provincial, such as Wasatch Front Day, Chesapeake Bay Day or Amazon Basin Day. And it is that pollution knows no boundaries.
That's what was on the minds of the U.S. Supreme Court the other day, as the justices were hearing a case that will decide whether individual federal judges should be allowed to rule on lawsuits affecting the climate of the entire planet.
As satisfying as it would be to hear a judge bring his gavel down on a cease-and-desist-destroying-the-planet order, the justices indicated that they preferred a broader approach, specifically leaving it up to the Environmental Protection Agency. And that would be the proper approach.
It was impatience with the pace of the EPA's moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from factories and power plants that led a group of three conservation groups, six states and New York City to file suit against some of the nation's biggest emitters of carbon dioxide. They want them to cut down on the amount of climate-changing substances they emit before the climate balance is unalterably tipped.
On the other side of the case, arguing the EPA should be in charge, were not only the outfits being sued — four energy corporations and the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority — but also the Obama administration. These seemingly strange bedfellows are on the right side of this issue.
As was noted by U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, "The court has never heard a case with so many potential perpetrators and so many potential victims."
Remedies for climate change will of necessity involve a broadly based approach that will touch many more things than just power plant emissions. Doing it correctly, in a way that not only works but that also wins maximum buy-in from both the perpetrators and the victims, will mean a balance of rules, market-based solutions, taxes, R&D and changes in lifestyle across the spectrum of the public and private sectors, producers and consumers, incentives and penalties.
No single lawsuit, even one before the most learned of judges, is likely to achieve that goal. It will be up to the EPA, which is both national in jurisdiction and armed with the necessary expertise, to tackle that task.
Even the EPA will have limited power to really face this problem without tougher international agreements. And even that agency will be at the mercy of White House meddling, congressional funding and court oversight.
But the broadest approach possible is necessary when dealing with problems that so easily drift across state lines.