Hoisted with their own petard fighting a lawsuit
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
The EPA is fighting a desperate battle to sink a green lawsuit, a lawsuit which is substantially based on the EPA’s own climate narrative.
The Lawsuit, launched by the Center for Biological Diversity, seeks to impose enhanced clean water act protection upon the Pacific Coast. The suit argues that protection is necessary because, according to the EPA’s own climate narrative, ocean acidification is severely damaging the marine ecosystem.
According to the CBD;
“The CBD points out that the EPA has acknowledged that ocean acidification has killed billions of oyster larvae in the Pacific Northwest but still would not classify the waters as imperilled.”
http://www.law360.com/articles/568751/epa-seeks-to-sink-green-group-s-ocean-acidification-suit
The EPA’s response is that there is insufficient evidence to support an endangerment finding – an apparent contradiction of their own previous climate narrative.
“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,” the EPA’s motion says. “Nor was there any other information documenting effects on indigenous populations of aquatic life in state waters indicating stressors attributable to ocean acidification. The only information available regarding aquatic life in ambient waters under natural conditions was inconclusive.”
If I have understood this ridiculous situation correctly, the EPA is now in a position in which it may have to admit in court that some of its previous official statements about ocean acidification were not supported by available evidence.
Of course, if the EPA loses the case, an even more farcical situation may arise – the EPA’s failure may open the floodgate for compensation lawsuits against the US government, from people who claim their livelihoods are being damaged by ocean acidification, due to the EPA’s failure to protect the environment from CO2 “pollution”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ha ha! EPA painted themselves in a corner,so to speak.
Given the fact that oceanic pH fluctuates within an alkaline range, it is truly amazing that the ocean acidification nonsense continues. It’ll be interesting to see what happens next
There are many fundamental truths in old sayings and quotations. One the EPA might like to ponder on is this :
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”.
So true, and how often we find that deceptions come back to bite the deceiver. Far too many in the climate alarmist world have yet to learn that “Honesty is the best policy”.
Why do we assume the EPA wants to actually win this fight? Seems this just furthers the cause.
As much as I would like to see the EPA eat their words (or regulation booklets) this could backfire pretty bad and support their extremely expensive (and cash cow for some) case of “Fighting the Evil CO2”
The EPA may well have ‘painted themselves into a corner’…. but it will be the US taxpayers that pick up the cost of litigation, compensation, reparations, et.al.
What a profound waste of time, effort, and money, spent addressing a nonexistent issue that both flora and fauna are already adapted to…….
“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,”
I guess lawyers who don’t have the talent to be successful private litigators go and work for the government. A statement like this just begs a bunch of studies to be done, ironically paid for by government. When they do have the ‘evidence’ (oh it will be peer reviewed by the biological polit-buro) they find themselves check mated. Oh and let’s imagine more than just Washington State fisherman lawsuits!! The Californian Current ends up bathing the western Pacific from Papua to Japan and the Gulf Stream the coasts of the EUSSR and West Africa.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” – Sir Walter Scott
Old England
August 25, 2014 at 11:11 am
Man we are teleconnected – I thought of the Sir Walter Scott quote at the same ti;mke
Is this the same EPA that funded environmental organizations with the express purpose that the funding would give those organizations the necessary resources through which to turn around and sue that same EPA? An underhanded way to force diktats on the public? Diktats that the EPA itself always wanted but were reluctant to take direct credit for? (We had to do it; the court demanded it!) Diktats out legislators don’t have to take direct credit for either? (We didn’t vote on it – against our constituent’s interests.)
Could this be blowback?
Pacific Ocean today. Atlantic and Indian Oceans tomorrow. Law suits against the US will continue, since US is the biggest overall historical contributor of CO2 to atmosphere (and the preferred target for such things generally).
Let’s hear James Hansen and rest of the cheer this on.
There is a viable explanation for the death of oyster larvae in the Pacific Northwest. The oyster farms were raising various Asian species of oysters. The indigenous Pacific oysters continue to thrive. Upwelling of cold water along the coast have been identified as the source of oyster jeopardy. It is reasonable to postulate that the Asian oysters have not acclimated to the colder waters along the WA and OR coasts. Consequently, the larvae die.
What about coral reefs in volcanic regions where a lot of volcanic CO2 comes out of the sea bed? I remember vaguely somebody said that those corals are doing very well in this CO2 saturated sea water. Is this information correct? Has anybody more details of such a situation. If this claim would be right and widely known, then the whole sea-water-acidification scaremongering story should come to an end…
Does anyone know if the EPA or responsible parties are being sued over the wildlife destruction caused by solar and wind power? It would seem to be a natural Eco target.
Given the current “excellence ” of the American Courts, i foresee every possibility that the EPA will lose this case and end up with a court ordered mandate to once again solve something which they have absolutely no chance of even affecting i.e. “ocean acidification”. They will attack the problem with their usual bull-in a china shop enthusiasm, destroying businesses and jobs while generating not a whit of difference in the ocean’s pH.
This, of course, will be right in line with the Bamster’s long term plan of removing the last and best example that maximizing human liberty also maximizes human well being, while attempting to maximize human equality only leads to inevitable totalitarianism.
Can’t have it both ways. Of course, it isn’t environmental protection the EPA is really about anyway, but power.
Hoist with their own petard, dammit. A petard is a bomb, not a crane.
Get the popcorn ready. Seattle based CBD is basing their oyster claim on the Seattle Times series, Sea Change, which based its oyster reporting on ‘official’ press releases from NOAA PMEL, in turn based on a fundamentally flawed PMEL/OSU paper concerning the Whiskey Creek oyster hatchery on Netarts Bay Oregon. So EPAs response is ‘officially’ factually wrong. But the correct factual response would reveal how deceptive and shoddy a lot of the climate research is on which they base things like endangerment findings. This kerfuffle now in the courts could cause the whole house of cards to come down upon both sides on discovery.
The oyster ‘scam’ claiming an ocean acidification ‘smoking climate gun’ (to direct quote a PMEL press release) was exposed by my post ‘Shell Games’ at Climate Etc. earlier this year. An expanded version including the Australian coral reef ‘scam’ (also amplified by the Sea Change reporting) is in my forthcoming book.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service also declined last month to list the wolverine in the US as “threatened” and that has put the usual planet-saver groups’ knickers in a twist.
An article in Daily Beast unabashedly spews the warmist narrative using some real howlers like these: “The U.S. Navy predicts summer Arctic sea ice will be gone by 2016”. … “researchers now predict [Glacier National] Park]’s glaciers will disappear by 2020.”
“The Big Lie” must still be the preferred strategy.
The Lawyers will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Damned if they do and doubly damned if they don’t.
I find this rather amusing.
because they know it was perfectly natural…..upwellings did it
“””…
thinair
August 25, 2014 at 11:29 am
Pacific Ocean today. Atlantic and Indian Oceans tomorrow. Law suits against the US will continue, since US is the biggest overall historical contributor of CO2 to atmosphere (and the preferred target for such things generally). ….””””
Actually, this is not true. The USA, is the largest, and perhaps the only large land based carbon sink. We are not a net carbon source, our MAN MADE agriculture and farmed forestry, soak up more than all the MAN MADE carbon emissions of the USA. And then some of the natural NON MAN MADE carbon emissions as well, because the USA, is a NET CARBON SINK.
Yes you can find the peer reviewed scientific papers on that.
In Sweden we use to tell funny tails and stories to fool people on April 1st – Is it possible that EPA think it’s proper to tell such every day 🙂
Roger Andrews had a post on ocean acidification over on Energy Matters a few weeks ago.
http://euanmearns.com/is-ocean-acidification-a-threat/
I am struggling to keep up with the deluge of information, but if I recall correctly, dissolving carbonate beasties has more to do with upwelling deep water that contains more dissolved “CO2” than surface waters where the dissolved CO2 content has barely changed. Roger has a knack of plotting charts that say it all, here’s his chart for Aloha CO2
http://oi61.tinypic.com/k0pqb4.jpg
Understanding the CO2- bicarbonate – carbonic acid equilibria is a bitch!
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Please note:
The EPA’s response is that there is insufficient evidence to support an endangerment finding – an apparent contradiction of their own previous climate narrative.
“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,” the EPA’s motion says. “Nor was there any other information documenting effects on indigenous populations of aquatic life in state waters indicating stressors attributable to ocean acidification. The only information available regarding aquatic life in ambient waters under natural conditions was inconclusive.”
If I have understood this ridiculous situation correctly, the EPA is now in a position in which it may have to admit in court that some of its previous official statements about ocean acidification were not supported by available evidence.
Where have all the money gone, long time passing……. no answers.