Taking climate case to Supreme Court a risky undertaking

THE ISSUE The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a global climate change suit.

THE Bush administration's denial of global climate change conforms with its refusal to acknowledge that it has an obligation to regulate the air pollutant at the heart of the problem.

By claiming the Environmental Protection Agency has no authority to control carbon dioxide emissions, the administration prompted 12 states, three cities and more than a dozen citizen and environmental organizations to go to federal court to force the agency to do its job.

Pressing the case to the Supreme Court, however, is a risky venture. For even as their attorneys argue that climate change is indisputable, the issue is difficult to separate from the basic question of whether the states and others have standing -- have suffered harm -- to bring the matter to the court.

A negative ruling could deny citizens access to the federal courts to seek enforcement of the law.

Congress would have been a better venue for pushing the EPA to act, but as long as Republicans held the majority, there was no hope of getting legislation through.

As a result, justices heard arguments last week, during which administration lawyers, backed by automobile industry attorneys, contended the EPA lacked the power to control greenhouse gas emissions, a reversal of its position in previous administrations. Further, curbing vehicle emissions that make up 6 percent of carbon dioxide releases in the United States would only moderately reduce releases, they contended.

While that's true, the auto reduction should be only the start of cutting the billions of tons of carbon dioxide being released into the air, and the EPA should be leading the way.

As to harm, just ask the people of Tuvalu who fled their homes as rising seas enveloped their Pacific island, or Alaska natives whose shorelines push farther inland with every year. They might not have legal standing, but they do have a moral one.