In an important case affecting how the nation will deal with global warming, a dozen states lined up at the U.S. Supreme Court last month to ask the federal government to impose emission standards for carbon dioxide on new automobiles.
The states, led by Massachusetts, argued that the Bush administration has failed to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, which scientists say contribute to a warming atmosphere and rising sea levels.
The state of Alaska, with its melting permafrost, eroding villages and disappearing polar bears, took part in the Supreme Court case too.
On the other side.
Alaska joined seven other states to argue that Congress has not given the Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The administration of former Gov. Frank Murkowski chose to enter the landmark case on the side of Michigan and the auto industry, even though Alaska -- the only state in the fast-warming Arctic -- is feeling more severe effects of climate change than any other state.
A spokesman for the state Department of Law said he was not free to discuss how the state arrived at its legal position.
"We never talk about the deliberation process," said department spokesman Mark Morones.
Alaska signed on to Michigan's brief in defense of the Bush administration, which argued that global warming was an international problem beyond the reach of existing federal laws. Industry groups such as the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers also sided in court with the Bush administration's interpretation of the law.
Urging greater federal controls were Massachusetts, California, New York, Washington and eight other states, along with several major cities and a long list of environmental groups.
As the first global warming case to reach the Supreme Court, the Massachusetts case is seen as a test of the current court's feelings on the issue. Massachusetts' attorney general called it "the most pressing environmental case in decades."
The Michigan/Alaska argument does not dispute the science surrounding global warming.
"In this case, there is no dispute that global climate change is caused by emissions from around the world," Alaska's position said.
But the Alaska-backed legal brief went on to argue that reducing emissions from new vehicles would eliminate "only a small fraction of global greenhouse emissions," most of which come from abroad.
Press accounts of the Nov. 29 oral argument said four justices appeared likely to end up on either side, with Justice Anthony Kennedy a possible swing vote. The case will be decided by the end of June.
An important issue in the oral argument was whether the states have standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's decision on carbon dioxide. Can the states show "tangible and imminent danger"?
"I mean, when is the predicted cataclysm?" said Justice Antonin Scalia in a much-quoted question to the lawyer representing Massachusetts.
The state of Alaska was silent on that question. But an answer of sorts was provided by the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which was allowed to contribute a friend-of-the-court brief on the opposite side from the state. The tribes' brief cited scientific studies showing temperatures increasing in the Arctic at almost twice the rate of the rest of the world, with widespread impacts on animals and subsistence.
"While regulating greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles would be only the first step toward addressing potentially catastrophic climate change, it is necessary if the unique traditions and communities of Alaska's Native peoples are to survive this century," wrote Trustees for Alaska lawyer Frances Raskin in a brief for the tribes and several other Alaska Native organizations.
While the reasons for the state of Alaska's position in the case remain murky, one possible clue appears in an earlier and longer state-supported brief, filed two years ago when the case was still at the federal appeals court level.
In that brief, Michigan argued that imposing carbon dioxide emission controls on automobiles would also lead to new regulation of industry air emissions. Such regulation could hurt local economies, Michigan and Alaska said, while doing very little to address the global problem.
"I think this process began a long time ago with the previous administration," said Department of Law spokesman Morones. "With the transition, I'm not sure how far the new attorney general and the administration have gotten into looking at some of these issues."
During last fall's political campaign, Gov. Sarah Palin said she remained unconvinced about how much human emissions contribute to current global warming trends. She endorsed the work being undertaken by a new Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission created by the Legislature last May, which she said would help provide Alaskans with answers.
But the Legislature steered away from addressing broader causes of global warming and potential solutions when it created the panel.
The commission was formed to figure out the local impacts of current temperature changes and to suggest ways Alaska can prepare to deal with them. Its first meeting was held in Fairbanks in December, with a second meeting scheduled for Jan. 24 in Juneau. A preliminary report is due to the Legislature March 1, with a final report in January 2008.
The legislative commission will not try to sort out scientific questions about the human role in climate change or propose solutions, said Tim Beninendi, an aide to the committee's chairman, Rep. Ralph Samuels, R-Anchorage.
"We're not trying to substantiate or argue the science," he said. Nor does the commission plan to take up suggestions made at the public hearing in Fairbanks, he said, regarding ways Alaskans can reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Daily News reporter Tom Kizzia can be reached at tkizzia@adn.com.
