Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

Cite as:  549 U. S. ____ (2007) 

23 

Opinion of the Court 

that  developing  countries  such  as  China  and  India  are 
poised to increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially 
over  the  next  century:  A  reduction  in  domestic  emissions
would  slow  the  pace  of  global  emissions  increases,  no 
matter what happens elsewhere. 

We  moreover  attach  considerable  significance  to  EPA’s
“agree[ment] with the President that ‘we must address the 
issue of global climate change,’ ” 68 Fed. Reg. 52929 (quot-
ing  remarks  announcing  Clear  Skies  and  Global  Climate 
Initiatives, 2002 Public Papers of George W. Bush, Vol. 1, 
Feb.  14,  p. 227  (2004)),  and  to  EPA’s  ardent  support  for 
various  voluntary  emission-reduction  programs,  68  Fed. 
Reg.  52932.  As  Judge  Tatel  observed  in  dissent  below, 
“EPA  would  presumably  not  bother  with  such  efforts  if  it
thought  emissions  reductions  would  have  no  discernable 
impact on future global warming.”  415 F. 3d, at 66. 

In  sum—at  least  according  to  petitioners’  uncontested
affidavits—the  rise  in  sea  levels  associated  with  global 
warming  has  already  harmed  and  will  continue  to  harm
Massachusetts.  The  risk  of  catastrophic  harm,  though
remote,  is  nevertheless  real.  That  risk  would  be  reduced 
to some extent if petitioners received the relief they seek.
We  therefore  hold  that  petitioners  have  standing  to  chal-
lenge the EPA’s denial of their rulemaking petition.24 

—————— 

to create a case or controversy—to take a suit out of the category of the 
hypothetical—provided  of  course  that  the  relief  sought  would,  if 
granted, reduce the probability”). 

24 In his dissent, THE CHIEF JUSTICE expresses disagreement with the 
Court’s  holding  in  United  States  v.  Students  Challenging  Regulatory 
Agency  Procedures  (SCRAP),  412  U. S.  669,  687–688  (1973).    He  does 
not,  however, disavow  this  portion  of  Justice  Stewart’s  opinion  for  the 
Court: 
“Unlike the specific and geographically limited federal  action of which 
the  petitioner  complained  in  Sierra  Club  [v.  Morton,  405  U. S.  727 
(1972)],  the  challenged  agency  action  in  this  case  is  applicable  to
substantially  all  of  the  Nation’s  railroads,  and  thus  allegedly  has  an
adverse  environmental  impact  on  all  the  natural  resources  of  the