WHEN the subject is global warming，the villain is usually America . Although it produces a quarter of the greenhouse gases that are heating up the planet，it refuses to regulate them. When other countries agreed on an international treaty to do so——the Kyoto protocol——America failed to ratify it. But not all American officialdom is happy with the federal government's stance. In fact，12 states disagree so fiercely that they are suing to force it to curb emissions of carbon dioxide，the most common greenhouse gas. The Supreme Court heard argument in the case on November 29th. The outcome will not be known for months，but the political wind seems to be shifting in favour of firmer action to counter climate change.
? ? ?? 當談論到全球變暖這個話題時，美國通常被認為罪犯。雖然它只排放了四分之一的使全球變暖的溫室氣體，但是卻拒絕控制排放。當其它國家同意遵守《京都協(xié)議書》這一國際協(xié)議時，美國卻不同意。但不是所有美國官員都認同聯(lián)邦政府的立場。事實上，12個州通過控告強迫減少二氧化碳這一主要溫室氣體的排放來表達自己的強烈反對。最高法院于11月29日在這件事上聽取了意見。這幾個月結果還無法得知，但是目前的政治導向似乎正朝著支持采取更強硬的行動來應對氣候變化的方向轉變。
The Clean Air Act charges the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with regulating air pollution from vehicles. But the EPA argues that Congress did not intend to include CO2 under that heading，and that to do so would extend the EPA's authority to an unreasonable extent. Furthermore，it contends that regulating emissions would not do good unless all or most other countries did the same. That is in keeping with the policies of President George Bush，who opposes mandatory curbs on emissions and believes that any international accord on global warming should apply to all countries——unlike the Kyoto protocol，which exempts poor ones，including big polluters such as China and India . Ten states，among them gas-guzzling Texas and car-making Michigan，also back the EPA.
? ? 《清潔空氣法》以控制車輛排放為由攻擊環(huán)境保護署。但環(huán)境保護署爭論道國會并沒有打算將二氧化碳納入條目中，而且這樣會將環(huán)境保護署的權力擴大到不合理的范圍。更進一步，環(huán)境保護署認為除非其它國家一起做相同的事情否則控制排放不會帶來什么好處。這和總統(tǒng)喬治布什的觀點不謀而合，都是反對強制性措施來控制排放和相信任何關于全球變暖的國際協(xié)議應該應用于所有國家而不是像《京都協(xié)議書》一樣豁免了包括中國和印度這樣的主要排放國在內的貧窮的國家。包括高排放的德克薩斯州和汽車產業(yè)發(fā)達的密歇根州在內的十個州也反對環(huán)境保護署。
The plaintiffs comprise 12 states，three cities，various NGOs，and American Samoa，a Pacific territory in danger of vanishing beneath the rising ocean. They are supported by a further six states，two power companies，a ski resort，and assorted clergymen，Indian tribes and agitated grandees such as Madeleine Albright，a former secretary of state. They point out that under the administration of Bill Clinton，the EPA decided that it did have the authority to regulate CO2. The act，they note，says the EPA should regulate any air pollutant that "may reasonably be interpreted to endanger public health or welfare". It goes on to define public welfare to include "effects on soils，water，crops，vegetation，manmade materials，animals，wildlife，weather，visibility，and climate".
? ? ?? 原告包含了12個州，三個城市，不同的非政府組織和處于消失在海平面上的危險之中的太平洋領土---美國的薩摩亞。同時有六個其它的州，兩個能源公司，一個滑雪勝地，還有各類神職人員，印第安部落，激動的顯貴們比如前任國務卿馬德琳·奧爾布賴特支持他們。他們指出，在比爾·克林頓（美國前總統(tǒng)）的管理下，環(huán)境保護署決定他們擁有管理二氧化碳排放的權力。他們特別指出，這份法令規(guī)定環(huán)境保護署應該管理任何有可能危害公眾健康和福利事業(yè)的污染物。這份法令同時定義公眾福利事業(yè)為包含對土壤，水，作物，植被，人造材料，動物，野生動植物，天氣，能見度和氣候的影響。
The Supreme Court may give a mixed ruling，decreeing that carbon dioxide is indeed a pollutant，but one the EPA is free to ignore or regulate as it pleases. Or it might dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have the right to lodge it in the first place. In theory，they must prove that the EPA's foot-dragging has caused them some specific harm that regulation might remedy——a tall order in a field as fraught with uncertainty as climatology. Even if the court found in the plaintiffs' favour，rapid change is unlikely. By the time the EPA had implemented such a ruling，Congress would probably have superseded it with a new law.
? ? ?? 最高法院也許會給出一個混合的裁定，也就是說二氧化碳確實是一個污染物，但是環(huán)境保護署可以選擇忽視或者限制它。否則最高法院會由于原告起初沒有正式提出它的權力而不理會上訴。理論上，他們必須證明環(huán)境保護署的拖延導致了他們某些可以用管制來補救的具體的危害，在充滿不確定性的氣候學領域，這是一個艱巨的任務。即使法院發(fā)現(xiàn)了支持原告的證據，快速的變化也是不可能的。在環(huán)境保護署實施這一裁定時，國會可能會用一個新法律來代替它。
That is the point，environmental groups say. They want Congress to pass a law tackling global warming，and hope that a favourable court ruling will jolly the politicians along. Moreover，the case has a bearing on several other bitterly-contested lawsuits. Carmakers，for example，are trying to get the courts to strike down a Californian state law based on certain provisions of the Clean Air Act that require them to reduce their vehicles' CO2 emissions. If the Supreme Court decides that the act does not apply to CO2，then the Californian law would also be in jeopardy. That，in turn， would scupper the decision of ten other states to adopt the same standard.
? ? ?? 環(huán)境保護組織指出這就是關鍵點。他們希望國會通過一項治理全球變暖的法律同時希望贊成的法院裁定會使得政治家們參與進來。更進一步，這個案子將對其它幾個處于拉鋸戰(zhàn)中的訴訟案有很大影響。例如，汽車制造商正嘗試讓法院廢除加利福尼亞州的一項法律，這一法律基于《清潔空氣法》的幾項要求他們減少汽車二氧化碳排放量的規(guī)定。如果最高法院裁定法案不適用于二氧化碳，那么加利福尼亞州的法律就處于危險境地了。這一裁定又將依次讓其它十個州采用同一標準的計劃化為泡影。
However the Supreme Court rules，many state governments are determined to tackle climate change. California is in the vanguard. Its legislature has passed a law that will cap and then reduce industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Seven eastern states have formed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative，which will treat emissions from power plants the same way. Almost 400 mayors have signed an agreement to cut their cities' emissions in line with Kyoto . Many businesses，even some power companies，would rather see regulation now than prolonged uncertainty. And several of the leading contenders for 2008's presidential election are much keener on emissions caps than Mr Bush. Change is in the air.
? ? ?? 不管最高法院如何規(guī)定，許多州政府已經決定治理氣候變化。加利福尼亞州就是先鋒。它的立法機關已經通過了一項覆蓋和減少工業(yè)溫室氣體排放量的法律。七個東邊的州已經成立了區(qū)域溫室氣體倡議，這一倡議將以同樣的方式對待發(fā)電站的排放氣體。大概400個市長在一項和《京都協(xié)議書》一致的協(xié)議上簽了字，同意減少他們城市的排放量。許多企業(yè)，甚至一些能源公司，寧愿遵守監(jiān)管，也不愿面對長期的不確定性。而且，幾個2008年總統(tǒng)選舉的競爭者對排放上限比布什總統(tǒng)的變化的懸而未決更熱心。
