Will the Supreme Court permit EPA climate decisions to stand?

If it does, the impacts on our lives, livelihoods, liberties and living standards will be enormous

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case will determine how far EPA can extend its regulatory overreach, to control “climate changing” carbon dioxide from power plants and other facilities – by ignoring the Constitution’s “separation of powers” provisions, rewriting clear language in the Clean Air Act, and disregarding laws that require the agency to consider both the costs and benefits of its regulations and what it is regulating.

Put more bluntly, the Court will decide whether EPA may deceive the American people, by implementing regulations that have no basis in honest science and will be ruinous to our economy. It is the most important energy, economic and environmental case to come before the Court it in decades.

Suppose a used car dealership routinely rolled back speedometer mileage, deleted customer complaints from its website, posted fabricated compliments, and lied about defects and accidents, to sell more cars. Or a manufacturer misstated its sales and bottom line, failed to mention major safety violations and fines, and made false claims about new product lines, to attract investors and inflate stock prices?

Both would be indicted for fraud. Now apply the same standards to EPA, whose actions and regulations will affect far more people: virtually every family, facility, company and community in the United States. Jurors would likely rule that the agency is engaged in systematic deceit, dishonesty and fraud.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy insists there is “no more urgent threat to public health than climate change.” She is determined to impose President Obama’s anti-hydrocarbon agenda. “I just look at what the climate scientists tell me,” McCarthy told Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Translated, she means she talks only to those who advocate climate alarmism, and ignores all contrary scientists and evidence.

In fact, thousands of scientists and studies argue that there is no empirical, observational evidence to support any of her claims. Recent NOAA and NASA temperature data confirm that global warming ended in 1997 and continues today, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase steadily, improving plant growth worldwide. Seas are rising at barely seven inches per century, and there is no evidence that recent weather events are any more frequent, intense or “dangerous” than what mankind has dealt with forever.

There is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide emissions have replaced the powerful, complex, interrelated natural forces that have always driven climate and weather changes. No evidence supports the notion that slashing CO2 emissions and trashing our economy will “stabilize” global temperatures and climate variations, or that developing countries will stop pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

EPA brushes all this aside. The agency just assumes and asserts human causes and disastrous results, disregards any and all experts and evidence to the contrary, and ignores any and all costs imposed by its regulations.

It has also violated the Constitution, by rewriting specific Clean Air Act provisions that specify 250-ton-per-year emission limits, in sections that EPA is relying on for its climate rulemakings. To shut down coal-fired power plants, the agency illegally and arbitrarily raised the threshold to 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, and ignored the fact that in 692 bills Congress never contemplated applying these sections to greenhouse gases. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, EPA will continue rewriting the law, gradually tightening its standards to control millions of natural gas generators, refineries, factories, paper mills, shopping malls, apartment and office buildings, hospitals, schools and even large homes.

EPA and other agencies have paid out billions in taxpayer dollars to finance and hype “research” making ludicrous claims that manmade global warming is hidden in really deep ocean waters or obscured by pine tree vapors; tens of thousands of offshore wind turbines could weaken hurricanes; and climate change will cause more rapes and murders. They have used “climate disruption” claims to justify giving eco-activist groups billions of taxpayer dollars to promote alarmist climate propaganda … spending tens of billions on crony-corporatist “green energy” and “climate resilience” programs … and forcing the United States and other nations to spend hundreds of billions on worthless climate change prevention capers.

EPA’s so-called “science” is intolerable “secret science.” The agency refuses to share it with outside experts or even members of Congress and businesses impacted by its regulations. The agency claims this taxpayer-funded information is somehow “proprietary,” even though it is being used to justify onerous regulations that dictate and impair our lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards and life spans. EPA refuses to be transparent because it wants to prevent any examination of its internal machinations.

Just as bad, EPA routinely ignores its own scientific standards, and many climate reports it relies on come straight from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, as the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow observed in its amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in this case, the IPCC has been caught red-handed presenting student papers, activist press releases and emailed conjecture as “peer-reviewed expert reports.” It has been caught deleting graphs that clearly show its computer models were worthless, and employing junk models like the one that generated Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” to support assertions that it is 95% certain that humans are causing climate change chaos.

These computer models are built on unproven alarmist assumptions, have never been “validated” and are not merely “unverifiable.” They are flat-out contradicted by real-world evidence right outside the EPA windows, making their results worthless for sound, legitimate public policy. Any yet they drive policy.

In violation of federal laws and executive orders, EPA hypothesizes, concocts or exaggerates almost every conceivable carbon “cost” – to agriculture, forestry, water resources, coastal cities, human health and disease, ecosystems and wildlife. But it completely ignores even the most obvious and enormous benefits of using fossil fuels and emitting plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide: affordable heat and electricity, jobs, transportation, better crop growth and nutrition, and improved living standards, health and welfare.

In reality, hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide benefits outweigh their alleged costs by as much as 500 to 1! That means EPA’s “climate change mitigation” rules impose costs on society that exceed even EPA’s exaggerated regulatory benefits by as much as 500 to 1. The EPA “cure” is far worse than the “disease.”

And let’s not forget that one of Ms. McCarthy’s senior advisors devising the agency’s climate change policies and regulations was none other than John Beale – the guy who bilked us taxpayers out of $1 million in salary and travel expenses for his mythical second job as a CIA agent. To suppose his fraudulent actions did not extend to his official EPA duties defies belief. And yet EPA has apparently taken no steps to reexamine Beale’s analyses or conclusions.

EPA has done all of this knowingly, deliberately, with full knowledge of the grossly deficient foundations of its pseudo-science and policies – to drive an anti-hydrocarbon agenda, without regard for the consequences that agenda will inflict on millions of Americans and billions of people worldwide.

This goes beyond mere sloppiness or incompetence. It is dishonest. It violates the law. According to standards applicable to every citizen and business in the land, it is fraudulent. By controlling the energy that powers our homes, cars, businesses and nation, EPA’s carbon and carbon dioxide policies will control and impair our economy, wipe out tens of millions of jobs, and kill thousands of people – for little or no health or environmental benefits.

The real threat to public health and welfare is not climate change. It is EPA and what this rogue agency is doing in the name of preventing climate change. If the Supreme Court allows this, by giving carte blanche authority to EPA, the battle will rage on countless other fronts, because voters are sick and tired of being lied to, manipulated, defrauded, and forced to pay outrageous prices for oppressive regulations.

Democrats say they plan to use climate change to attack Republicans in 2014. I say, Bring it on!

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
128 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Iggy Slanter
March 3, 2014 12:54 pm

If you like your way of life, you can keep your way of life. Period.
It worked before.

Chad Wozniak
March 3, 2014 1:02 pm

Well said – but one minor nit: “global warming ended in 1997 and continues today” should read “global warming ended in 1997 and the halt in it continues today”.
Since Congress appears unable to put the EPA in its place, if the Supreme Court surrenders to McCarthy & Co. (parallels to Joe, anyone?) the states will have to act. I would recommend that in every red state and every coal state at least, each state government declare the EPA to be a rogue agency and a criminal enterprise, and that their state is no longer subject to its jurisdiction. And then let der Fuehrer and Himmler (Holder) and Eichmann (Holdren) huff and puff and jackass bray all they want to.

March 3, 2014 1:03 pm

[Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency] is the most important energy, economic and environmental case to come before the Court it in decades.
Yes, but it wasn’t argued that way?
Argument recap: Five — the number that counts

Overall, the Court seemed largely to be awaiting the turn of the U.S. Solicitor General at the lectern. While he drew obvious and continuing support from the Court’s more liberal Justices, he was challenged at times aggressively by Justice Scalia. But it was Justice Alito who used the most accusing descriptions of how the EPA had interpreted its power to regulate greenhouse gases, saying at one point that, in the entire history of environmental regulation, no agency had given itself the authority to simply edit the explicit language that Congress had written into the law.

SCOTUSBlog Summary page: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/utility-air-regulatory-group-v-environmental-protection-agency/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
Audio recording: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1146

Gary
March 3, 2014 1:04 pm

Expect CJ-SCOTUS, John Roberts, to use “The Nick Stokes Defense” on this one.
It worked before.

JamesS
March 3, 2014 1:04 pm

I’m missing something here. How does raising the threshold from 250 tons per year to 100,000 tons per year a “cutback”? How are these things measured?

March 3, 2014 1:04 pm

ugghh

Proud Skeptic
March 3, 2014 1:06 pm

The title of this post is misleading. I was hoping it would give some kind of insight into case law or precedents that would elucidate how the Supreme Court would deal with this…especially in light of the fact that it has already given the EPA the right to classify CO2 as a pollutant.
Instead we get the usual recitation of EPA abuses.
Don’t get me wrong…I am having a hard time these days figuring out what is the difference between the EPA and a dictatorship. They need to be cut off and fast.
Perhaps a new title would be appropriate…one that doesn’t make the potential reader assume that this post contains insights into how the Supreme Court might rule.

March 3, 2014 1:07 pm

“Will the Supreme Court permit EPA climate decisions to stand?”
Stand in front of the 9 members of the Supreme Court. Wait a few seconds and then point out to each of them that they just exhaled CO2 into the atmosphere. Their exhaled breath may have contained as much as 10 times the about 400 parts per million that is in the atmosphere now. All of the plant-life on the planet that use photosynthesis “breathes in” CO2.
CO2 in the atmosphere can not be considered a pollutant?

Quinn the Eskimo
March 3, 2014 1:12 pm

The Solicitor General told the Court that human beings are net neutral w/r/t CO2. Is this correct?

MJW
March 3, 2014 1:12 pm

Unfortunately, Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog was doing a bit of a pre-celabratory Snoopy dance on the assumption the court will uphold the EPA’s rule. He thinks Kennedy will likely side with the liberals. On some issues, such as free speech, Kennedy is great, but on others, he seems to be willing to toss aside logic and the law in order to achieve political outcomes. We can only hop[e he comes to his senses and realizes what an open-ended tool he’s handing to executive agencies if he allows them to rewrite statutes. That would be Chevron deference raised to the nth power.

March 3, 2014 1:15 pm

For a monumental case giving EPA practically unlimited power to rewrite laws to fit its policy, the arguments seemed rather unfocused:
From about the middle of the summary blog:
“Reading the briefs,” [Justice Kennedy] commented to [US Sol. General] Verrilli, acting as the EPA’s lawyer, “I cannot find a single precedent that supports your position.” It appears that there just isn’t one to be had.
That, then, raised the question: how much would Kennedy be willing to trust the EPA to have done its best to follow Congress’s lead without stretching the Clean Air Act out of shape, as the EPA’s challengers have insisted that it has done? He made no comments suggesting that he accepted industry’s complaint of an EPA power grab.

Alan Robertson
March 3, 2014 1:17 pm

The current SCOTUS has decided that an individual’s assets may be frozen when accused of a crime involving forfeiture of assets, if convicted, thus subverting an individual’s right, under the 6th Amendment, to effective counsel during trial. Just last week, this court found that police can conduct a warrantless search of premises if anyone on site gives them permission to enter, even if the homeowner has stated previously that the police may not enter.
Such decisions do not inspire confidence in this court’s view of the power of individuals vis a vis the state.

pokerguy
March 3, 2014 1:17 pm

“The title of this post is misleading. I was hoping it would give some kind of insight into case law or precedents that would elucidate how the Supreme Court would deal with this…especially in light of the fact that it has already given the EPA the right to classify CO2 as a pollutant.
Instead we get the usual recitation of EPA abuses.”
My thoughts exactly. Valuable post, but should be called what it is. I’d have been much more interested in a reasoned analysis as to how this might ultimately be adjudicated. I’ve read that it looks close, with one Justice (forget which) possibly determining which way it goes.

more soylent green!
March 3, 2014 1:22 pm

MJW says:
March 3, 2014 at 1:12 pm
Unfortunately, Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog was doing a bit of a pre-celabratory Snoopy dance on the assumption the court will uphold the EPA’s rule. He thinks Kennedy will likely side with the liberals. On some issues, such as free speech, Kennedy is great, but on others, he seems to be willing to toss aside logic and the law in order to achieve political outcomes. We can only hop[e he comes to his senses and realizes what an open-ended tool he’s handing to executive agencies if he allows them to rewrite statutes. That would be Chevron deference raised to the nth power.

On issue after issue, there is no doubt how the liberals on the bench will vote. We know how they will vote on this, no question. Politics is their main concern and they will employ any logic to ge the pre-determined decision they desire.

MJW
March 3, 2014 1:25 pm

My thoughts exactly. Valuable post, but should be called what it is. I’d have been much more interested in a reasoned analysis as to how this might ultimately be adjudicated. I’ve read that it looks close, with one Justice (forget which) possibly determining which way it goes.
If one judge determines the outcome, it’s virtually always Kennedy. As it is in this case.
See Stephen Rasey comment for a link to the SCOTUSblog (quite discouraging) analysis of the oral argument.

Matthew R Marler
March 3, 2014 1:36 pm

I am sympathetic to your argument, but I think that the wording of the law gives EPA the right to decide on its own what weight to give to various sources of evidence, who counts as a scientist, what counts as science, and so forth. Do you have links to the briefs?

john robertson
March 3, 2014 1:39 pm

Short answer; Yes.
The political appointees of the Supreme Court have already made it clear ideology trumps law.
Having abandoned law, they will rule for the lawless activity of their comrades.
I would like to be wrong.
I doubt this court will prove me so.
These are the agents of the kleptocracy, civilization will fall if they have their way.
For without rule of law, we have no social contract.

David L. Hagen
March 3, 2014 1:45 pm

See ScotusBlog.com for further documents on the Utility Air Regulatory Group v Environmental Protection Agency SC Docket No. 12-1146, Op Below: D. C. Cir.; Argument: Feb 24, 2014,

JD Ohio
March 3, 2014 1:49 pm

As a lawyer who has read some of the briefs in the Massachusetts V. EPA case, I would say that the Massachusetts v. EPA case was poorly argued by the Bush Administration. It simply argued that the CO2 regulations proposed by the states would be so small that they would be irrelevant. (The states lacked standing) However, the Bush Administration assumed the viability of Hansenite science, which I think was a very serious tactical error. If the obvious defects of Hansenite science were adequately explained, I think there is a chance that Kennedy could be swung over to reach an opposite conclusion.
JD

B
March 3, 2014 1:49 pm

Without looking at the actual briefs, I can share from experience that appellate courts are generally quite opposed to explicit deviations from its congressional authority. Congress enacts the EPA Act and the agency lives within those rules, often interpreting the grey areas for their own use. If the EPA is granted authority by the courts to keeps its interpretation, its up to Congress to subsequently amend that authority more explicitly to Congressional intent – as opposed to agency interpretation.
Chevron deference as previously referred already gives agency actions huge power to avoid regular court systems until the agency action runs its course, and they often abuse that power by pushing through decisions that have no basis in reality and are ultimately overturned.
So unless the EPA explicitly does not have power under the current Act to impose restrictions on the use of CO2, then I expect they will win. If as suggested here, SCOTUS upholds decisions for agencies to unilaterally rewrite its own laws then that would be a problem. Every other agency will soon follow suit; all hell breaks loose.
I suspect that its somewhere in the middle. A district appellate court would not uphold a decision to give an agency that level of power I’m sure, so the fact that SCOTUS is reviewing implies that EPA Act needs revisions to limit agency interpretation.

Matthew R Marler
March 3, 2014 1:50 pm

Thanks to Stephen Rasey for the SCOTUSblog link. From there, I eventually got to this, the respondent’s consolidated brief:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/12-1146bsUnitedStates.pdf
There are lots of other briefs, including “amici curiae” briefs. My opinion is that the law is bad, but I don’t see how SCOTUS can rule the way I would like it to rule. I think that it is up to Congress to rewrite the law. I hope I am wrong.

March 3, 2014 1:51 pm

Any yet they drive policy. = And yet they drive policy

Rud Istvan
March 3, 2014 1:52 pm

The appropriate response is not for SCOTUS to opine on a poorly worded CCA, now stretched beyond recognition. Although they may. And would have, I think, sufficient grounds in this specific case turning on narrow and precise issues of statutory interpretation.
It is for Congress to legislate by vote, rather than the EPA to legislate by fiat. This is an election year. And something can be done about the Senate. And then something more could be done about executive over-reach.

JD Ohio
March 3, 2014 1:53 pm

Should have read blog cited by Rasey before commenting. Appears that Kennedy still supports the Massachusetts v. EPA case notwithstanding his skeptical comment. He will be hard to win over. Still believe that Massachusetts v. EPA was poorly argued, but it appears that the mistake may linger on.
JD

Peter Miller
March 3, 2014 1:53 pm

Just over 70 years ago, a notorious German persuaded his parliament to pass an ‘Enabling Act’ to “save the country”.
The EPA today appears to have assumed the same role.
In both instances, not enough people demanded to know the answer to the question: “Save us from what?”
In both instances, the results were/will be the same.

1 2 3 5