The Justices were actually deciding a question about the Envrionmental Protection Agency, but climate change is at the heart of it

The U.S. Supreme Court is the latest group to realize climate change is happening fast and needs immediate action.

That wasn't the specific question the Court was considering. But the issue is at the heart of its 5-to-4 decision April 2 regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (This is the story in the New York Times. It's free, but you may have to register to read it.)

The state of Massachusetts and a number of other groups and states brought suit four years ago, saying that the EPA has to regulate automobile emissions. The agency challenged that contention, seeking to sidestep the issue.

Yesterday the court ruled that regulating emissions is part of the agency's mandate. But what really caught our eye was this passage from the majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens: "Greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of air pollutant. [The EPA] does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made gas emissions and global warming. Judged my any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations."

The Supreme Court ruling overturned a 2005 federal appeals court decision.

Following the decision, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry group representing General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota and five other companies, pledged to work with the federal government to come up with a national solution to vehicle emission regulations, preferring that to a series of state-by-state laws.