The US Supreme Court provided a strong goad in the fight against climate change by forcing the government to regulate greenhouse gases, lawyers said, but this will not change policy overnight.
"What the court did was essentially start a process," said Kevin Healy, a lawyer specializing in environmental issues. "Trust me, it would take 10 years for standards to be set" on harmful emissions, he added.
In a case led by Massachusetts on behalf of several other states and cities, the court ruled Monday that greenhouse gases are pollutants, and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was wrong to refuse to regulate such emissions.
"The consequence of this will be to create pressure to get federal legislation that is coherent and comprehensive, and most importantly targeted to the emission of greenhouse gasses and the problems related to climate change," Healy said.
"The court has decided that ... a state has standing to sue at least the federal government on the basis of an action related to climate change."
The decision was welcomed by environmentalists as a milestone in fighting global warming. It dealt a blow to the administration of President George W. Bush, which refuses limits on US industry and gas-guzzling cars, arguing they could hurt the country's economy.
Josh Dorner, spokesman for the Sierra Club environmental group, said on Monday: It "sends a clear signal to the market that the future lies not in dirty, outdated technology of yesterday, but in clean energy solutions."
Democrat lawmakers who hold a majority of seats in Congress have also announced plans for a climate change bill for this summer.
"The potential for exposure to companies on climate change is another thing that is going to lead to pressure" on the federal government from companies to set emissions guidelines, Healy said.
The authorities will be forced to "issue some statutes that will allow companies the comfort of knowing what they should be doing."
Howard Fox, a lawyer for the environmental group Earthjustice, said other lawsuits were pending against EPA for its refusal to regulate emissions from electricity plants, which produce some 40 percent of US carbon dioxide emissions.
He added that the Supreme Court decision would help states such as California which must defend their own measures to fight climate change against challenges in the courts from industrial groups.
Elsewhere, an appeal is pending by eight states in a suit aiming to oblige five companies to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from their electricity plants.
The prospect of individual plaintiffs bringing successful cases against companies remains a distant one, however, the observers said.
"That will have to wait another day," said Fox. "It really depends on what type of proof they can come up with."
"It's not at all clear to me that individual companies should bear the responsibility (for) the increase in CO2 that is the result of industrialized society," Healy said.
"I have my doubts as to whether those cases (by individuals) should be successful, but there is no doubt that they will be brought."
