Obama Admin Urges Supreme Court to Vacate Greenhouse Gas ‘Nuisance’ Ruling
By GABRIEL NELSON of Greenwire
The Obama administration has urged the Supreme Court to toss out an appeals court decision that would allow lawsuits against major emitters for their contributions to global warming, stunning environmentalists who see the case as a powerful prod on climate change.
In the case, AEP v. Connecticut, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a coalition of states, environmental groups and New York City. The decision, handed down last year, said they could proceed with a lawsuit that seeks to force several of the nation’s largest coal-fired utilities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The defendants — American Electric Power Co. Inc., Duke Energy Corp., Southern Co. and Xcel Energy Inc. — filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court earlier this month, asking the court to reject the argument that greenhouse gas emissions can be addressed through “public nuisance” lawsuits (Greenwire, Aug. 4).
In a brief (pdf) filed yesterday on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority, acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal agreed with the defendants, saying that U.S. EPA’s newly finalized regulations on greenhouse gases have displaced that type of common-law claim.
Katyal urged the court to vacate the decision and remand the case to the 2nd Circuit for further proceedings, this time taking into account the administration’s push to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
The 2nd Circuit’s decision rested on the assertion that “EPA does not currently regulate carbon dioxide,” but that has since changed. The Obama administration has finalized several regulations in response to the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which told the agency to decide whether greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
…
Matt Pawa, an attorney representing plaintiffs in the case, said he and his colleagues expected the White House to stay out of the matter. During a meeting with more than 30 administration lawyers at the solicitor general’s office on June 24, it seemed they had “a lot of friends in the room,” he said.
“We feel stabbed in the back,” Pawa said. “This was really a dastardly move by an administration that said it was a friend of the environment. With friends like this, who needs enemies?”
Top attorneys at environmental advocacy groups are buzzing about the brief, sources say. Some feel betrayed by a White House that has generally been more amenable to environmental regulation than its predecessor.
“This reads as if it were cut and pasted from the Bush administration’s briefing in Massachusetts,” said David Bookbinder, who served as the Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel until his resignation in May.
read the entire story here at the NYT
These suits are the ecofringe’s holy grail. Sue utilities, force them to shut down. Create a crisis to the point that the federal government has to come in and nationalize the power grid. A watermelon’s wet dream.
Another sign that mr obama wishes to outmanoeuver the us legal system . As a lawyer he must see the consequences of loosing a case . The science behind global warming is apparently not that robust and a growing part of the population is developing a better insight in the warmist propaganda . So why trust a judge if you can have it all the burocratic way ? It is smart to discipline your supporters when the real objective is to silence your ennemies . Or am I too prejudiced here ?
A really cold winter and spring, with lots of Arctic ice, may do more “good” than all this lawsuit stuff – which does however, IMHO, have the merit of stopping things while we see if we are in for a cold period. Funny how lawyers aren’t often poor!
Wet and cold August in the UK, but its only weather…. of course
Ref – UK Sceptic says:
August 26, 2010 at 12:18 pm
“I believe Obama can feel the chill breath of the mid term elections spectre on the back of his hypocritical brass neck…”
____________________________
Me thinks thee give credit for nerves
And feelings where none reside,
Much as a rose, is a rose, is a rose…
A hypocrite, is a hypocrite, is a hypocrite,
Regardless of what type of neck he hath.
He who would destroy all
Will not be swayed.
Where weaker men would hesitate, or stop,
He sees only opportunity and will not.
Voter beware! Voter beware, I say!
Life is dangerous to fools without brains
Who vote for those without hearts.
When I saw the title “Obama SG…” I thought that may have been the Surgeon General, and hoped that meant someone smart enough to understand biology had finally stepped up and denounced the “CO2 = pollution” nonsense.
The records remains unbroken since Inauguration Day 2009: all my hopes for signs of sanity from the Obama administration dashed, still no statistically significant indications of intelligence from this White House.
All this action does is try to legitimize the EPA greenhouse gas ruling. What would happened – if during these trials – contrary evidence from the defense was publicized? I think they would rather not risk the exposure and will settle for legislation through the EPA.
Closely related –
Texas fights global warming – State Attorney General sends letter to EPA re: CO2 and regulation/law re-writes sans congressional action:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/25/texas-fights-global-warming-power-grab/?page=1
Obamassiah has made a serious mistake . . . the greenie-weenies will go hyper ballistic, they’ll be Mach 1 before they clear the tower. Barry has just chopped up another one of his dwindling support legs.
Let the games begin . . .
R.S.Brown says:
August 26, 2010 at 12:48 pm
“If there is a common law right to persue such suits,
and Joe Citizen (aka a “person”) has standing to bring
suits for alleged damages, then whatever EPA rules and regs
get issued may have less impact than they might have with no
defined common law rights recognized by the court system.”
Common Law allows me to sue anyone for some perceived damage to me.
I.E. You allow you lawn to grow too tall, rodents infest your lawn and end up infesting my property as a result. You have created a nuisance for me, so I can sue you to cut your grass.
Eventually everyone is suing everyone over mowing the grass, if I get sued because my grass was 4″ high then I’ll sue my neighbors who grass is 3″ high.
Eventually, folks just get fed up with all the lawsuits and the municipality sets a standard, anything less then 8″ high is not considered to be a nuisance.
The plaintiffs in this case are attempting to force the administration to set a standard, because a precedent where anyone who emits CO2 can be sued for emitting CO2 becomes a legal nightmare. Only an insane person would want the precedent to stand, since everyone would be liable.
Really? So there was a ruling, but when was this again?
This is the second time Barry O has tried to shelter small businesses from the EPA. Around September ’09 is when the EPA made the endangerment finding and tailored the 250 ton limit to 25,000 tons so that only large CO2 emitters would exceed the limit.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/01/fallout-shelter-team-obama-seeks-to-limit-reach-of-co2-ruling/
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/an_epa_power_grab_GwJGiZdvLuVLgKVygMZ8oL
It only underscores the need for a decisive change in Congress- one that dan end the Obamanation, and stand up to the run away bureacuracies being driven to madness by extremists.
latitude says:
August 26, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Getting too close to November.
========================
Right!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
North Carolina sued TVA for polluting it’s air with real pollutants that actually cause damage and are harmfull to health. They lost. Maybe the administration realizes that IPCC reports are not legal proof that CO2 is even a nuisance, and if tried in state courts before EPA regulations are enforced at the federal level, their house of cards would fall.
It might be useful to review the proposed Final Rule from the EPA ( for those interested in the legalese ) http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20100413final.pdf .
I suspect that there are a sufficient number of obscure justifications that the EPA and the greenies will drag out of it to make their case one way or another. The only real solution is to unseat this administration and terminate the EPA’s authority to tailor Congressional laws.
The EPA is getting sued by everyone; States, the U.S. Chamber, and Industry. This CO2 stupidity is costing taxpayers a fortune.
The EPA carbon policy is infringing on States like Texas have already have a permit policy in place and is an attempt to implement a policy that has not been properly vetted by the States (timeframe usually takes 2 years which also allows the states time to comply).
If the Eco-Zealots want to sue Industry, they should do it on their own and the EPA should follow the law.
frederik wisse says:
August 26, 2010 at 1:19 pm
“So why trust a judge if you can have it all the bureaucratic way ? It is smart to discipline your supporters when the real objective is to silence your enemies . ”
Precisely! The courts act with an aim toward “leveling the scales” in as fair and impartial a manner possible under the law. This administration seeks to punish with prejudice in whatever fashion it pleases.
Bogus science creates real job loss.
The last thing the greenies or the politicians want to see is CO2 be evaluated as anything except a gas, in a court of law. The rules of evidence are far to strict to allow foolishness and ideology to pay a major part.
Lawyers get paid, win or loose.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
August 26, 2010 at 12:22 pm
This is the key statement: “U.S. EPA’s newly finalized regulations on greenhouse gases have displaced that type of common-law claim.”
No sense muddying up the EPA’s waters with complicating legal claims. This is happening even faster than I had predicted.
————————–
The word ‘prediction’ gets a lot of abuse.
To draw a distinction between what is happening and what is seen to be happening has nothing to do with prophecy. ‘Recognition’ is the appropriate term here.
Just sane…
Those that ban CO2 should live without CO2–and all the “benefits” accompanying that wonder gas. Force them to go without transportation, food, housing, clothing, staying warm… The list is practically endless.
OT
I heard the Arctic ice is doing worse than it was in 2007! Oh No!
Of course, I was listening to KFCF / KPFA Pacifica Radio, which I lovingly call Communist Radio. And yes I laughed at the sheer untruthfulness of the claim. Regardless, coupled with the Obama betrayal, there will be more than a few greenies who will not be sleeping well tonight.
If there is a detection of some semblence of a return to sanity in this bulletin; it is lost on me.
If the Obamites were suggesting the tossing of the Supremes revelation that CO2 is a harmful pollutant that the EPA must regulate, we could shout halelujah; or words to that effect. But it’s not clear to me that that is what’s happening.
The latest (13 August) edition of SCIENCE has some related revelations; mostly from the alternative energy aspects of the Climate issue; and one might get the feeling that reality is beginning to settle in at that end of the spectrum.
There also is a one page retrospective on the late Stephen Schneider by one of his associates; Paul R. Erlich, of Population Bomb fame. It’s an interesting piece worth reading disconnected from the heat that sometimes surrounds Schneider.
But a main emphasis of this issue is the subject of scaling up Alternative Energy, and a post fossil fuels world, starting with a Keynote essay by Richard A. Kerr. The essay is interesting if only for its exclusion of Nuclear energy from any future scenario, although it does have some data on that part of the present energy picture.
In a section with the innocuous title “Lower density” there’s some eye opening numbers on just what Lower energy density really means. An oil field coal or mine has 5-50 times the power yield (areal density) of a solar plant; or 10-100 times that of a wind farm, and between 100 and 1000 times the areal density of plant biomass. Coal yields 50 times more energy than corn ethanol, even including extraction and transport costs, and oil is 13 times more productive than corn ethanol.
Well I’m not going to rehash the whole issue here; but the series of papers on related issues; give some idea that reality may be coming down to earth. Some of that reality could also strike the CO2 induced climate change reason behind bio-fuels.
Think about it; does human produced and emitted carbon dioxide persist in the atmosphere for 200 years like the tell us it does ?
If that is true; and I do mean if; then clearly bio-fuels have no carbon recycling benefit; since we would slam into the tipping point wall, long before the CO2 emitted from burning bio-fuels ever gets recycled.
So which is it AGW fans; is human emitted CO2 from combustion energy a 200 year persistent and dangerous pollutant; or are solar powered bio-fuels a non polluting bypass of fossil energy; even at 13 or 50 times less energy density ?
Take your pick !
M White says:
August 26, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“I know how they can do it.
Shut down at the beginning of December and re-open at the beginning of March.”
Exactly and let the windmills and solar cells take over “and everyone lived happily ever after”
Or so it goes in fairy tails