WASHINGTON -- This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that shows exactly what the Bush administration agenda is, in black and white. (Please read the summary of questions presented in Massachusetts v. EPA, 05-1120.)

The Bush administration is actually going to argue that it should not be required to enforce certain provisions of the Clean Air Act; namely, the EPA does not believe that carbon dioxide emissions are a "pollutant" as defined by the Clean Air Act, and thus the administration should not have to regulate those emissions.

But why would the government argue that it shouldn't have to enforce its own laws? In the schizophrenic world of the Bush administration, the law is pitted against (1) the philosophies of Bush apointees, many of whom came from the very industries that they are now in charge of regulating; and (2) the interests of Bush personal friends and financial backers. It wouldn't be very good for business if the government suddenly required dramatic, nationwide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Domestic auto manufacturers and energy companies would be forced to -- gasp! -- spend money developing alternative energy sources that don't generate as much carbon dioxide.

With Bush in office, they've had some help in that regard. Bush's so-called Healthy Forests initiative increased the amount of logging that logging companies could engage in. The so-called Clear Skies Act actually weakened the Clean Air Act. All of this backscratching was done in the name of pleasing Bush's constituency.

Now, the administration is being taken to court to require it to set standards of carbon dioxide emissions through the Clean Air Act. The administration claims that carbon dioxide doesn't qualify as a "pollutant" under the Act; however, the Act itself is quite clear in its language. A "pollutant" is anything that is released into the air, regardless of whether or not it is dangerous or toxic. As carbon dioxide is released into the air, it stands to reason that it qualifies as a "pollutant" and thus must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Part of the Bush administration's failure to regulate carbon dioxide emissions may be political (obviously). In regulating carbon dioxide emissions, the administration may be admitting that carbon dioxide is a pollutant "associated with climate change," and in admitting that, the administration would also have to admit that there is such a thing as global warming, and that humans are causing it. The administration thus far refuses to believe such a thing, and it has gone to great lengths in the past to censure or silence government scientists who would make such a conclusion. Again, this is due to the relationship Bush has with auto and energy companies, who do not want to have to spend billions of dollars to change their business models.

More analysis on the D.C. Circuit Court's prior decision in this case, as well as citations from the Clean Air Act.