"Should the EPA lose, “people will read the Supreme Court as having rebuffed the Obama administration, and that’ll be a headline,” he said. “People will over-read the significance of what the court did.""...4/2/2007, "Supreme Court Rejects Bush in Global Warming Debate," ABC News, Jennifer Parker
---------------------------
2/24/14, "Obama’s Climate Plan Challenged by Industry at U.S. High Court," Bloomberg,
The Obama administration today goes before the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time to defend climate-change policies that industry groups and Republican-led states say amount to a costly overreach of federal power.
Seven years after the court said the Environmental Protection Agency could regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, the justices are considering whether the agency misused that authority by imposing permit requirements on power plants and factories."...
[Ed. note: This is a false statement about the 2007 Supreme Court decision. The 2007 5-4 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v EPA, didn't say the EPA "could regulate greenhouse gas emissions," only such emissions from new motor vehicle tailpipes." (parag. 5)]
.
(continuing): The agency concluded after President Barack Obama took office in 2009 that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and the planet. The EPA followed up by placing new emissions standards on cars and trucks.
The high court case centers on the next step the EPA took, when it used the vehicle-emission rule as a basis to also set permit standards for factories and other stationary sources. The EPA says those requirements were automatically triggered once the agency found that greenhouse gases were enough of a threat to warrant vehicle regulations....
Obama came into office looking to win congressional approval of legislation to control greenhouse gases. With those efforts having failed, the EPA rules now represent the primary front for the administration.
The agency’s biggest initiative, proposed rules capping emissions from power plants, isn’t at issue in the Supreme Court.
Biggest Threat
The Obama administration told the justices in court papers that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions “may prove to be more widespread, longer-lasting, and graver than the effects of any other pollutant regulated under the act.”"...[Ed. note: Why is Bloomberg publishing this known false statement without comment? The EPA has already stated Obama's proposed rules to regulate CO2 emissions will have no effect on CO2 emissions. Bloomberg has just termed these rules to be his "biggest" initiative and yet they won't change emissions. One also notices use of the qualifier "may," ie, the impact "may prove to be." The US leads the world in CO2 reduction but could go to zero and it wouldn't effect the planet of which the contiguous US only comprises 1.5%.]
(continuing): "Because the case won’t affect other parts of the EPA agenda, including the power-plant emission caps, the biggest impact may be political, (Harvard Prof.) Lazarus said.
Should the EPA lose, “people will read the Supreme Court as having rebuffed the Obama administration, and that’ll be a headline,” he said. “People will over-read the significance of what the court did.
‘‘The fact is Obama can still do exactly what he’s been doing under more powerful provisions.’’
The cases are Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 12-1146; American Chemistry Council v. EPA, 12-1248; Energy-Intensive Manufacturers v. EPA, 12-1254; Southeastern Legal Foundation v. EPA, 12-1268; Texas v. EPA, 12-1269; and Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 12-1272."
============================
On 1/8/14 EPA again states in the US Federal Register that Obama proposed rules to limit CO2 emissions from power plants will have negligible effect on CO2 emissions:
Jan. 8, 2014:
1/8/14, "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," US Federal Register, federalregister.gov
"I. General Information," "A. Executive Summary"
"3. Costs and Benefits"
"Therefore, based on the analysis presented in Chapter 5 of the RIA, the EPA projects that this proposed rule will result in negligible CO 2 emission changes, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022. [2]"...
================================
Sept. 20, 2013:
9/20/13, EPA text (pp 343, 346) says its rule limiting CO2 emissions in new power plants will have no notable effect on CO2 emissions:
Sept. 20, 2013, Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Proposed Rule.” Submitted “for publication in the Federal Register”
page 343, “X. “Impacts of the Proposed Action”
p. 346, E. “What are the economic and employment impacts?”
“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022. The owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice. Likewise, the EPA believes this rule will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets, or the U.S. economy.
p. 346, F. What are the benefits of the proposed standards?
As previously stated, the EPA does not anticipate that the power industry will incur compliance costs as a result of this proposal and we do not anticipate any notable CO2 emission changes resulting from the rule. Therefore, there are no direct monetized climate benefits in terms of CO2 emission reductions associated with this rulemaking. However, by clarifying that in the future, new coal-fired power plants will be required to meet a particular performance standard, this rulemaking reduces uncertainty and may enhance the prospects for new coal-fired generation and the deployment of CCS, and thereby promote energy diversity.” (end page 346)
==========================
Regarding Bloomberg News articles on this topic, Michael Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg News, has financial and personal interest in the climate industry:
1/17/14, "After Leaving Office, Bloomberg Is More Hands-On at Old Company," NY Times, Nathaniel Popper
"Mr.
Bloomberg’s dive back into the news side of the organization has not
only caught employees by surprise, but it has also worried some that the
division’s editorial independence could be called into question.
Generally, the owners of news organizations try to avoid any appearance
of influencing coverage, particularly when they have political
affiliations.
“There’s
a discussion of the ethics of it,” said one current employee, who was
at the editorial meetings and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
“There’s this feeling that no one is there to say no to him.”
Before
entering City Hall, Mr. Bloomberg did not have a reputation for being
overly involved in Bloomberg News. He sat on a floor with Bloomberg’s
much more lucrative data terminal business, and was not known for
attending editorial meetings.
But
Mr. Bloomberg has signaled that his interests have changed. Now he sits
with the TV operation and media group on the fifth floor of the
Bloomberg tower on Lexington Avenue and 59th Street, in the same cluster
of desks as Justin B. Smith, the new chief executive of Bloomberg Media."...
=========================
Bloomberg position at UN:
Bloomberg position at UN:
2/21/14, "Former NYC Mayor’s leadership on climate change vital to success of UN summit – Ban," UN.org
"Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today
hailed former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s efforts on the
environment, adding that the leadership of the new United Nations
Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change will be vital for an
upcoming summit on the issue."...
=================
Comment: The April 2007 5-4 Supreme Court case "Massachusetts vs EPA" was supposedly a man-caused global warming related
decision, but it really wasn't because it wasn't argued. No one in court presented the science that CO2 doesn't cause global warming. The defendants (Bush admin. personnel) believed in man-caused CO2 terror, per Justice Stevens decision. He states Bush administration participants actually "did not dispute" that human CO2 causes global warming. Massachusetts had sued the Bush administration claiming Massachusetts sea levels were being adversely affected by motor vehicle CO2 emission from American tailpipes:
4/2/2007, "Massachusetts vs EPA"
p.1, from Justice Stevens decision:
(scroll down): "Causation
4/2/2007, "Massachusetts vs EPA"
p.1, from Justice Stevens decision:
(scroll down): "Causation
"EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal
connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
At a minimum, therefore, EPA’s refusal to regulate such emissions
“contributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries."...
==============
.
.
"The EPA doesn't dispute that carbon dioxide is playing a role in climate
change, just whether or not it has the authority to regulate greenhouse
gases."
.
.
=====================
.
.
14 climate scientists joined the 2007 case:
Fourteen climate scientists were among groups and individuals filing Amicus briefs in the 2007 Supreme Court case against the Bush administration. Others:
4/2/2007, "Supreme Court Rejects Bush in Global Warming Debate," ABC News, Jennifer Parker
.
"Eleven states joined Massachusetts in bringing the suit against the EPA,
including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and
Washington State, along with numerous other environmental groups and
nonprofit organizations.
Fourteen "friend of the court" briefs were also filed from independent
scientists, former EPA administrators, former Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright, electric power companies, state and local
governments, and others."...
.
.
[Ed. note: Amicus briefs were also filed
by Entergy, Calpine, and the US Conference of Mayors per a now
disappeared Sierra Club link. Here's a link to Entergy's stock market chart. Entergy price reached a then all time high right after the 4/2/2007 Supreme Court decision was announced. I spent over two hours trying to find a current link referencing
Entergy and Calpine Amicus briefs in the 2007 Supreme Court case with no
luck.]
.
.
The political climate has changed dramatically over the issue of global
warming since the court agreed last year to hear the case -- the Supreme
Court's first on the subject.
In November of 2006, Democrats took control of Congress and pledged to make global warming a national issue."...
-----------------------------------------------------
This Jan. 2013 article follows a 2012 Circuit Court decision favoring EPA and includes strong dissenting opinion of DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Janice Rogers Brown. She references the 2007 Supreme Court case and the Clean Air Act. (Warning-According to google, Judge Brown has long since been labeled a right winger by the left. This generally means every word she says on any subject will be laughed at.)
1/4/13, "Will the Supreme Court Review EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations?" Marlo Lewis, GlobalWarming.org
"Recent strong dissenting opinions by two D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
judges may persuade the Supreme Court to review one or more of the
agency’s GHG rules — or even reassess its ruling in Mass. v. EPA....
In 2011 a coalition of industry groups, states, and non-profits
petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn all four GHG
rules: endangerment, tailpipe, triggering, and tailoring. In June
2012, a 3-judge panel decided the case, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, in favor of the agency, upholding all four GHG rules. In August, coalition members petitioned for an en banc (full court) rehearing. On December 20, the court voted 5-2 to deny the petitions. However, the dissenting opinions of Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Brett Kavanaugh are so cogently argued that the Supreme Court may decide to review the case. The Court might even reassess its ruling in Mass. v. EPA....
Judge Brown begins her dissent by noting that, although bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling, she is skeptical of its reasoning:
Bound as I am by Massachusetts, I reluctantly concur with the Panel’s determination that EPA may regulate GHGs in tailpipe emissions. But I do not choose to go quietly. Because the most significant regulations of recent memory rest on the shakiest of foundations, Part I of this statement engages Massachusetts’s interpretive shortcomings in the hope that either Court or Congress will restore order to the CAA.Congress never intended the CAA to be an “environmental cure-all.” The Act’s actual statutory purposes are much more limited:
It was targeted legislation designed to remedy a particular wrong: the harmful direct effects of poisoned air on human beings and their local environs. This is what Congress understood as “air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health” in the tailpipe emissions provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). The Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), however, concluded otherwise.Congress’s intent is visible in the very title of the statute:
It was no happy accident that congressional draftsmen titled the legislation the “Clean Air Act.” Ambient air quality was the point, purpose, and focus of the CAA. Congress had set its sights on the “dirty, visible ‘smokestack’ emissions” [citation omitted].The CAA Amendments of 1990 “expanded the Act beyond its singular emphasis on urban air quality to address hazardous — i.e., toxic — air pollutants, acid rain, and stratospheric ozone,” Brown acknowledges. However, “the very particular way in which Congress handled these exceptions goes a long way toward proving the rule: Congress only expands the CAA through considered legislative acts.” Congressional intent is discernible in Congress’s consistent practice:
Simply put, when Congress became aware of new dangers, it acted judiciously in crafting workable remedies that, when they obtained the necessary political support, were worked into their own discrete provisions under the Act. Neither Congress nor the EPA attempted to force these distinct problems into existing, ill-suited regulatory schemes.From which Judge Brown draws the common-sense conclusion:
Where our Representatives have acted with such caution, any suggestion that Congress has — through a single word — conferred upon EPA the authority to steamroll through Congressional gridlock, upend the Senate’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, and regulate GHGs for the whole of American industry must necessarily fail. The legislature, recall, does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Assocs., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001).Specific legislative history also argues against the cure-all interpretation of the CAA:
In drafting the 1990 Amendments, Congress considered — and expressly rejected — proposals authorizing EPA to regulate GHGs under the CAA. . . . The Executive’s critique noted that “unilateral action aimed at addressing a global problem” through a standard limiting tailpipe emissions would not be an effective means of safeguarding the global environment and would “necessarily punish national interests.”Brown goes on to note that in all the years since the 1990 amendments, Congress has “never deviated from its decision not to regulate GHGs under the CAA” — and “not for lack of opportunity.” Indeed, “By one estimate, Congressmen have proposed more than 400 bills pertaining to GHGs between 1990 and 2009.”
None of this is to suggest, in the words of the Massachusetts Court, that “post-enactment congressional actions and deliberations” repeal powers previously delegated to the EPA by the CAA.
The point, rather, is that more than a selective and dubious reading of the CAA definition of “air pollutant” is needed to establish that, in 1970, Congress did in fact delegate the truly awesome power to de-carbonize the U.S. economy to an administrative agency. Or, as Judge Brown more delicately puts it:
Congress’s inability to break this nearly quarter-century long deadlock is incredibly suggestive: this is not an area of policymaking where the legislature has acted rashly or unthinkingly in delegating authority to agencies.
Judge Brown also questions whether, per CAA §202, the
EPA can actually show that “air pollution” from GHG emissions ”may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” It is
one thing to establish a nexus between traditional air
pollutants and the harm done to people who inhale them. It is quite
another to demonstrate endangerment from GHGs, because “any harm to
human health and welfare flowing from climate change comes at the end of
a long speculative chain.”
The EPA had to make assumptions about future emissions,
future emission concentrations, climate sensitivity, the impact
of warming on weather patterns, the impact of those on agriculture and
other economic activities, and, finally, the impact of those on
human health and welfare. Brown worries that if the EPA can find
endangerment where ”there can be this much logical daylight between the
pollutant and the anticipated harm, there is nothing EPA is not
authorized to do.”
Next, Brown takes up the tailoring rule. She seems to
suggest that the litany of absurd results arising under the PSD and
Title V programs is itself reason to doubt that GHG regulation falls
within “the literal meaning” of the CAA. In any event, she views the
tailoring rule as a clear case of administrative overreach: ”Faced with
the choice of reconsidering the legitimacy of an endangerment finding
that sets in motion such a cluster of chaos or rewriting the statute,
the agency has blithely done the latter. This is an abuse of the
absurdity and administrative necessity doctrines as neither can be
invoked to preempt legislative prerogatives.”
Determining climate policy, she suggests, is above any
administrative agency’s pay grade: ”Congress should not be presumed to
have deferred to agencies on questions of great significance more
properly resolved by the legislature. If there was ever a regulation in
recent memory more befitting [more guilty of?] such a presumption than
the present, I confess I do not know of it.”
Next, Brown examines the relevance of FDA v. Brown & Williamson (1999), in
which the Supreme Court struck down the FDA’s attempt to assert
regulatory control beyond its statutory authority
by classifying cigarettes as drug delivery devices. The Court
distinguished the issues in Massachusetts from those in Brown & Williamson, but Brown shows how with “only slight modifications” one could rework the text of Brown & Williamson to apply to GHGs.
The Court argued that whereas FDA regulation of tobacco
products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) logically entails
an outright ban on the sale of cigarettes, an endangerment finding
would “lead to no such extreme measures,” only a cost-constrained
regulation of emissions from vehicles already regulated under §202 of
the Act. “But,” observes Brown, “the Court spoke too soon.” The Court
never considered whether or how motor vehicle GHG regulation would
trigger regulation of stationary sources. It did not consider how
regulation of GHGs as air pollutants would “radically expand the
universe of covered entities far beyond Congress’s intentions.”...
Brown
concludes: “The Supreme Court in Massachusetts simply did not have occasion to consider this absurd and ‘counterintuitive’ outcome, but we do — and we must.”...
Near the conclusion of her opinion Brown writes: ”Congress simply did
not intend for EPA to convert the ‘Clean Air Act’ to the ‘Warm Air Act’ writ large. But that is exactly what the federal courts have done.”"...
===================
9/26/13, "Climate Skeptics Against Global Warming," thebreakthrough.org, Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus
"The energy technologies favored by the climate-skeptical Right are doing
far more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than the ones favored by
the climate-apocalyptic Left....Now the United States is the global climate leader, despite having
neither a carbon price nor emissions trading, thanks to 35 years of
public-private investment leading to the shale gas revolution. Meanwhile, there is little evidence that caps and carbon taxes have had much impact on emissions anywhere."...(2nd sentence 7 parags. from end, 1st sentence, parag. 2)
===================
Comment: In 2012 $1 billion a day was invested in the idea of "global warming." Pretty good for something that doesn't exist. Trillions of US taxpayer dollars have been diverted to the AGW industry over several decades while real problems have been starved.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment