The US Supereme Court's decision against the EPA is a pretty interesting read. Seems America's highest court is a lot more enlightened about the cause and effect of greenhouse gases that accellerate global warming than Bush is.
The EPA's arguments for not regulating tailpipe emissions, as presented to the supreme court:
"1) The [Clean Air] Act does not authorize [the EPA] to issue mandatory regulation to address global climate change, and 2) even if [the EPA] had the authority to set green hous gas emission standards, it would have been unwise to do so at that time because a casual link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established. The agency further characterized any EPA regulation of motor vehicle emissions as a piecemeal approach to climate change that would conflict with the President's comprehensive approach involving additional support for technological innovation, the creation of non regulatory programs to encourage volutary private sector reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and further research on climate change, and might hamper the President's ability to persuade key developing nations to reduce emissions."
The Supreme Court obviously saw through this line of reasoning, and dismissed this and their other list of arguments against regulating tailpipe emissions.
Cudos to the Supreme Court for this landmark decision forcing the EPA to change it's thinking. Maybe this sensible transformation will spread to Bush and the rest of the administration and how it forms policy.
The entire decision can be found
here. 