Le New York Times<\/em> interroge dans son \u00e9ditorial de ce matin<\/a>: \u00ab Several other states have said they will adopt California’s rules. The automobile companies have challenged the rules in court, advancing the argument that they constitute a backdoor, illegal usurpation of federal authority to set mileage standards. The Bush administration made much the same point in announcing its new rules on Monday. That raises a question: What are states to do when the federal government does so little?<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIl est question de la volont\u00e9 de nombre d’\u00c9tats de l’Union d’adopter les r\u00e8gles anti-pollution tr\u00e8s contraignantes de la Californie pour les v\u00e9hicules SUV, et par cons\u00e9quent de rejeter la r\u00e9glementation f\u00e9d\u00e9rale qui vient d’\u00eatre adopt\u00e9e, qui est extr\u00eamement laxiste (on s’en serait dout\u00e9). Cette affaire de pollution, dans le cadre de la crise climatique et du protocole de Kyoto, est un cas majeur de d\u00e9saccords entre les \u00c9tats et le centre. Le New York Times<\/em> rappelle dans son \u00e9dito un autre cas, que le journal vient de r\u00e9v\u00e9ler, o\u00f9 neuf \u00c9tats du nord-est viennent d’adopter un plan de restriction des \u00e9missions polluantes qui contredit la r\u00e9glementation f\u00e9d\u00e9rale (\u00ab The plan is based on a regulatory regime that has explicitly been rejected by the Bush administration in favor of a softer, voluntary approach, which has yielded little progress so far.<\/em> \u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t(Autre point \u00e0 annexer, signal\u00e9 dans l’\u00e9dition de ce matin de The Independent<\/a>, qui laisse pr\u00e9voir des conflits avec l’administration f\u00e9d\u00e9rale : \u00ab In a landmark judgment, a court in California has allowed a coalition of environmental groups to sue the US government over global warming the first time a court has recognised the potentially disastrous impact of climate change.<\/em> \u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n