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.
当谈论到全球变暖这个话题时，美国通常被认为罪犯。虽然它只排放了四分之一的使全球变暖的温室气体，但是却拒绝控制排放。当其它国家同意遵守《京都协议书》这一国际协议时，美国却不同意。但不是所有美国官员都认同联邦政府的立场。事实上，12个州通过控告强迫减少二氧化碳这一主要温室气体的排放来表达自己的强烈反对。最高法院于11月29日在这件事上听取了意见。这几个月结果还无法得知，但是目前的政治导向似乎正朝着支持采取更强硬的行动来应对气候变化的方向转变。
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.
《清洁空气法》以控制车辆排放为由攻击环境保护署。但环境保护署争论道国会并没有打算将二氧化碳纳入条目中，而且这样会将环境保护署的权力扩大到不合理的范围。更进一步，环境保护署认为除非其它国家一起做相同的事情否则控制排放不会带来什么好处。这和总统乔治布什的观点不谋而合，都是反对强制性措施来控制排放和相信任何关于全球变暖的国际协议应该应用于所有国家而不是像《京都协议书》一样豁免了包括中国和印度这样的主要排放国在内的贫穷的国家。包括高排放的德克萨斯州和汽车产业发达的密歇根州在内的十个州也反对环境保护署。
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个州，三个城市，不同的非政府组织和处于消失在海平面上的危险之中的太平洋领土---美国的萨摩亚。同时有六个其它的州，两个能源公司，一个滑雪胜地，还有各类神职人员，印第安部落，激动的显贵们比如前任国务卿马德琳·奥尔布赖特支持他们。他们指出，在比尔·克林顿（美国前总统）的管理下，环境保护署决定他们拥有管理二氧化碳排放的权力。他们特别指出，这份法令规定环境保护署应该管理任何有可能危害公众健康和福利事业的污染物。这份法令同时定义公众福利事业为包含对土壤，水，作物，植被，人造材料，动物，野生动植物，天气，能见度和气候的影响。
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.
最高法院也许会给出一个混合的裁定，也就是说二氧化碳确实是一个污染物，但是环境保护署可以选择忽视或者限制它。否则最高法院会由于原告起初没有正式提出它的权力而不理会上诉。理论上，他们必须证明环境保护署的拖延导致了他们某些可以用管制来补救的具体的危害，在充满不确定性的气候学领域，这是一个艰巨的任务。即使法院发现了支持原告的证据，快速的变化也是不可能的。在环境保护署实施这一裁定时，国会可能会用一个新法律来代替它。
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.
环境保护组织指出这就是关键点。他们希望国会通过一项治理全球变暖的法律同时希望赞成的法院裁定会使得政治家们参与进来。更进一步，这个案子将对其它几个处于拉锯战中的诉讼案有很大影响。例如，汽车制造商正尝试让法院废除加利福尼亚州的一项法律，这一法律基于《清洁空气法》的几项要求他们减少汽车二氧化碳排放量的规定。如果最高法院裁定法案不适用于二氧化碳，那么加利福尼亚州的法律就处于危险境地了。这一裁定又将依次让其它十个州采用同一标准的计划化为泡影。
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.
不管最高法院如何规定，许多州政府已经决定治理气候变化。加利福尼亚州就是先锋。它的立法机关已经通过了一项覆盖和减少工业温室气体排放量的法律。七个东边的州已经成立了区域温室气体倡议，这一倡议将以同样的方式对待发电站的排放气体。大概400个市长在一项和《京都协议书》一致的协议上签了字，同意减少他们城市的排放量。许多企业，甚至一些能源公司，宁愿遵守监管，也不愿面对长期的不确定性。而且，几个2008年总统选举的竞争者对排放上限比布什总统的变化的悬而未决更热心。
