Abstract
When the international communities are urging for greenhouse gases reductions, the U.S. refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The inaction of such a great polluter again shook the world’s hope. However, the latest U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of the petitioners endorsed a different approach other than the Bush Administration’s foreign policy on climate change. This thesis aims to review on the scientific background of the climate change issue through scientific uncertainty and then examine how the greenhouse gas control is set out in terms of overall legal framework and case studies. In the overall legal framework review, the relationships between federal and state controls were discussed under the issues of federal pre-emption doctrine, command-and-control, and market-based approaches. In the case studies, two cases were compared and analyzed. Thus, through the process of identifying foreseeable risks of greenhouse gases, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA was able to decide that the U.S. EPA’s rulemaking decision was arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with law pursuant to Clean Air Act 1990; whilst Ethyl Corp. v. EPA set forth that a timely measure employed by the EPA was on the contrary appropriate for greenhouse gas control in terms of risks in human health. In light of the latest Supreme Court decision, the convergence of foreign policy and domestic control may emerge into a more consistent view on greenhouse gases abatement. In addition, All in all, it leaves very little doubt that the U.S. will be able to avoid its responsibility in the issue. The Supreme Court decision will urge the EPA to regulate new motor vehicles countrywide and consequently reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as induce more measures from the state level and private sectors to confront further the issue of scientific uncertainty and climate change regarding the U.S. legal framework of greenhouse gas control.