On this:

First, if these petitioners don't have standing, it's hard to imagine who would. Few lawsuits will be able to achieve more than a 2.5% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the federal courts would largely be abdicating any responsibility for the planet's biggest environmental problem.

A conservative like Adler would find this a feature, not a bug, right?  He would say that issues like this belong in the legislative and executive branches, reflecting the will of the people, rather than in the courts.

The wretched performance of those branches on this issue biases me against that argument, of course, but on a purely theoretical level it's at least coherent.

www.grist.org

you're providing very needed and sophisticated analysis- thanks a lot.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Justin, thanks for this.  Hopefully with Democratic control in Congress the case is no longer important substantively, but it remains to be seen whether it may bite the environmental movement generally by further restricting access to the courts.

In response to David's question:

Some argue that global warming regulation should be left to Congress.  I'm even sympathetic to this  - Congress should be involved.  However, I don't think this argument is particularly persuasive with respect to standing.  

Other legal doctrines, like the political question doctrine, are intended to protect the responsibilities of each branch of our federal government. Under that doctrine, courts can decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case if it involves an issue committed to another branch.

If the Supreme Court denies standing in this case, however, it will undermine the ability of Congress to enact future global warming legislation.  

Imagine the following situation: Congress (perhaps sick of this case) decides to enact a law that specifically restricts greenhouse gas emission from cars and trucks.  The Bush Administration promulgates an absurd regulation, clearly contrary to the law, that allows cars and trucks to emit all the greenhouse gases they want.  

This would be identical in terms of standing to the situation in Mass v. EPA. However, Congress would clearly have taken action.