Twelve States (Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota) today filed a petition to have the Supreme Court review the D.C. Circuit’s decision not to strike down EPA’s climate regulations.
The States argue that the Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act was designed in 1970, in order to fight smog. The law’s tools and mechanisms are totally inappropriate for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, which are much more prevalent than the pollutants that cause smog.
(full petition follows)
The States allege that EPA has overstepped its legal authority as the Agency tries to square the circle of fighting global warming with a law that was written at a time when people were scared of global cooling.
The full petition is here: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/States-GHG-petition.pdf
Submitted by James Wallace
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi, Terry,
Good for you to try so hard to urge the arrogant (not even the courtesy of a form letter response!) to step up to the plate and fight for truth. I think you can count on most major shareholders of any large company to vigilantly watch their investment. Why do these companies not file the lawsuit you recommend? I have no idea, but, it could be that their legal departments along with financial management concluded that the cost of the lawsuit, at least for now, significantly outweighs the benefit. They probably are more focused on trying to get Congress to fix bad law.
I believe most of the Big O’ companies (and other energy co.’s) are with you in spirit, but it only takes one defector from a band of allies to ruin it for all. They may join to fight against, say, ethanol gas, but, there will always be some unprincipled defector who will go along with the Environ-z-is and sell the bogus product; the defector will gain huge market share and that is hard to chip away at. And, if they are ordered to on penalty of imprisonment or fatally huge fines, they must obey or close their doors. [Unocal 76, God bless them, held out on the 10% ethanol gas (at least, in my state) until March, 2013, then, apparently, they were forced to join the rest of their competitors. The 76 station was where all of us went for our ethanol-free gas until then.] GE Corp. and T. Boone Pickens’ organization are two examples of unprincipled opportunists who have cynically but fervently pushed for “Green” [aaack! when-EVER I see that (or “organic”) on a product, I try to find another brand! — sometimes, impossible to do], to promote their curly fry light bulbs and windmills.
It is a big RISK to tell shareholders, “Sorry, folks, sales will be pretty bad this quarter; we just couldn’t morally justify peddling in deceit.”
The rules of the game, the laws, need to be fixed. Until then, anyone who wants to play must go along.
Your point about “deep pockets” is a good one; it may explain why no one (e.g. Pacific Legal) will file such a lawsuit. If the defendants are only the lying Cult of Climatology priests or some pseudo-science propaganda machine like the IPCC, they are, essentially, judgment-proof (practically speaking — not much net worth there). The punitive and deterrent value of a lawsuit such as you mention are worthy goals, BUT, sigh, who is going to pay for the legal fees and costs to make it happen? And, as I mentioned above, whether or not the law has a remedy is doubtful (as to the liability of the priests and/or their clubs of chicanery). Companies with shareholders have to be good fiduciaries of the shareholder’s investment. Perhaps, there is a noble, super-wealthy individual or two out there who might pay for such a lawsuit both for the purpose of publicizing truth and deterring further lies, but, not likely.
Educating the public to put pressure on their legislators to CLEAN UP ENVIROMENTAL LAW is the key. That is an apparently long, grim, and rocky path, and the view from here looks dismal, but, let’s keep plugging away. We may not get to see it in our lifetime, but, in the end, TRUTH will win.
Remember Galileo and Harrison (longitude clock) and Curie and G. W. Carver and Einstein. Their roads were steep and rough, BUT THEY WON OUT IN THE END. Many others didn’t live to see their own triumphs, but, TRUTH won. You are in good company, Terry Oldham.
Take heart and take care,
Janice
P.S. And remember, the need is not always the call. It’s okay to refrain from a battle that is not yours to fight (tough as it is to watch and as willing and eminently able as you are). Trust. GOD IS in control.
Janice;
Galileo won out in the end, but he didn’t live to see it. Posthumous triumphs are Pyhrric.
Good point, Bryan. Yet, vis a vis the battle for truth, ITS triumph, even if they do not live to see it, is why scientists fight the long, hard, battle for victory.
The humility of Galileo and Einstein and MOST bona fide scientists, would, I think, lead all of them to say quietly, “I wanted so much to see truth prevail, but that it prevails is all that really matters.”
And, personally, I think Galileo did see it, just from a much higher perspective. 🙂
Dear BRIAN, please forgive my misspelling your name. I don’t even know any “Bryans.” head shake