Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 12

6 

MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

No.  102–38,  Art.  2,  p. 5  (1992).    The  Senate  unanimously 
ratified the treaty.

Some  five  years  later—after  the  IPCC  issued  a  second
comprehensive  report  in  1995  concluding  that  “[t]he  bal-
ance  of  evidence  suggests  there  is  a  discernible  human
influence  on  global  climate”14—the  UNFCCC  signatories 
met in Kyoto, Japan, and adopted a protocol that assigned
mandatory  targets  for  industrialized  nations  to  reduce 
greenhouse  gas  emissions.    Because  those  targets  did  not 
apply to developing and heavily polluting nations such as
China and India, the Senate unanimously passed a resolu-
tion expressing its sense that the United States should not 
enter  into  the  Kyoto Protocol.  See S. Res. 98, 105th Cong.,
1st Sess. (July 25, 1997) (as passed).  President  Clinton  did 
not submit the protocol to the Senate for ratification. 

II 
On  October  20,  1999,  a  group  of  19  private  organiza-
tions15 filed a rulemaking petition asking EPA to regulate
“greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under 
§202  of  the  Clean  Air  Act.”  App.  5.  Petitioners  main-
tained  that  1998  was  the  “warmest  year  on  record”;  that 
carbon  dioxide,  methane,  nitrous  oxide,  and  hydrofluoro-
carbons are “heat trapping greenhouse gases”; that green-

—————— 

countries,  including  China  and  India.    They  could  choose  to  become 
Annex I countries when sufficiently developed. 

14 IPCC, Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change, p. 4. 
15 Alliance for Sustainable Communities; Applied Power Technologies,
Inc.; Bio Fuels America; The California Solar Energy Industries Assn.; 
Clements  Environmental  Corp.;  Environmental  Advocates;  Environ-
mental  and  Energy  Study  Institute;  Friends  of  the  Earth;  Full  Circle 
Energy  Project,  Inc.;  The  Green  Party  of  Rhode  Island;  Greenpeace
USA;  International  Center  for  Technology  Assessment;  Network  for 
Environmental  and  Economic  Responsibility  of  the  United  Church  of
Christ;  New  Jersey  Environmental  Watch;  New  Mexico  Solar  Energy
Assn.;  Oregon  Environmental  Council;  Public  Citizen;  Solar  Energy
Industries Assn.; The SUN DAY Campaign.  See App. 7–11.