The EPA Green Power Partnership began in 2001 to 'recognize the growing number [of] companies and organizations that have committed to green energy use.' It identifies the Top 25 Partners list, launched in 2004, for the 25 largest purchasers of green power from renewable resources; the Fortune 500 Green Power Challenge, launched in late 2006, to acknowledge the collective green power purchases of Fortune 500 companies; and the 100 Percent Green Power Purchaser list of organizations that meet 100% of their U.S. electricity needs from green power. On May 1, 2007, PepsiCo headed all three lists. See Dave Ryan, EPA Recognizes Largest-Ever Corporate Green Power Purchase, EPA Newsroom, April 30, 2007.

The IPY began March 1, 2007, and will continue until March 1, 2009, with over 60 nations participating in the research activities. The National Science Foundation is the lead agency for U.S. activities, and NASA is one of the participants. A video entitled NASA and IPY is available from NASAs Web site. This scientific occasion should be especially significant, given the many recently reported climate-change-related events at the poles.

The third section of the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report, entitled 'Mitigation of Climate Change,' is due to be released on Friday, May 4, 2007, in Bangkok, Thailand. Four hundred scientists and experts from about 120 countries are meeting there now to finalize the draft's wording. According to the BBC, the report will play an important role in the negotiations on climate change at the G-8 meeting in June, and in those on the next commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which will begin in December on Bali.

See Bangkok hosts key climate summit: Climate change experts are meeting in Bangkok for a major conference to discuss ways to combat global warming, BBC News, April 30, 2007.

The second part of the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report, entitled Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability was released on Friday, April 6, 2007.

Notes: See Alister Doyle, Tropical Losers, Northern Winners from Warming?, Scientific American.com, April 2, 2007; Andrew C. Revkin, Poorest Nations Will Bear Brunt as World Warms, New York Times, April 1, 2007, at sec.1, p.1; Richard A. Kerr, Worse to Come From Global Warming, ScienceNOW Daily News, April 6, 2007.

Although some areas in the northern hemispheres will temporarily benefit from global warming, poorer nations that are already at risk from climate changes are likely to suffer the most. The report recommended prompt adjustment in vulnerable regions of the world, which include the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, small islands, and Asian river deltas.

Notes: See James Kanter & Andrew C. Revkin, Emissions Already Affecting Climate, Report Says, New York Times, April 6, 2007, and Andrew C. Revkin, U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts, New York Times, April 5, 2007, at A6.  

The case came down on April 2, 2007, in a 5-4 decision in favor of petitioners. The opinion was written by Justice Stephens; two dissents were written by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia and joined by the other conservative justices. The majority held that petitioners had standing to sue; that greenhouse gases were air pollutants within the Clean Air Act's broad definition, and that therefore EPA has the statutory authority to regulate their emission from new motor vehicles; and that as the agency's rationale for not regulating was not reasonably related to the statute, it was arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. The court recommended that if the agency cannot show that CO2 is not implicated in global warming, the agency should regulate it. The Chief Justice's dissent focused on standing, which he would have denied; Justice Scalia thought the court should not interfere with the discretion of an executive agency.

Notes: The slip opinion is available at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf; Environmental Defense's article, Court Rules 5-4 in Massachusetts versus EPA: Supreme Court finds that EPA can regulate heat-trapping pollution, putting pressure on Congress to act on global warming, is available at: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5623. See also, US 'must regulate car pollution': The highest court in the US has ruled that the government was wrong to say it did not have the power to regulate exhaust gases from new cars and trucks, BBC News, April 3, 2007, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6519923.stm; Linda Greenhouse, Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases, New York Times, April 3, 2007, at A1; EPA Provided Insufficient Rationale For Declining to Cut Greenhouse Gases, 75 (37) U.S. Law Week 1583 (April 3, 2007), available at: http://pubs.bna.com/ip/bna/LAW2.NSF/eh/a0b4f3h3f2; Andrew S. Neal, Supreme Court Finds EPA Has Authority To Regulate Greenhouse Gases From Vehicles, BNA International Environment Daily, April 3, 2007, available at: http://pubs.bna.com/ip/bna/ied.nsf/eh/A0B4F3U0Y5.

The decision may push Democrats in Congress to pass new legislation to curb or cap GHG emissions in the U.S., but it is now considered inevitable that U.S. emissions will be regulated either by Congress or by EPA.

Note: See Dean Scott, Ruling May Accelerate Congressional Action Toward Passage of Cap-and-Trade Legislation, BNA International Environment Daily, April 3, 2007, available at: http://pubs.bna.com/ip/bna/ied.nsf/eh/A0B4F3U2C5.

Although Mr. Bush stated on April 3d that he considered the measures he has taken to be sufficient, the opinion was welcomed by Congress and the states, 40 of which have filed at least 300 bills addressing GHG and climate change.

Note: See Felicity Barringer & William Yardley, Bush Splits on Greenhouse Gases With Congress and State Officials, New York Times, April 4, 2007, at  A1.

However, one commentator, from his long experience dealing with the Clean Air Act, has no faith that EPA will do anything significant anytime soon, at least not until new and improved legislation is enacted, if then. He distrusts Congress's ability to make the tough choices that are necessary to deal with the problem.

Note: See David Schoenbrod, What Next on Global Warming?, Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2007, at A12.