Today was Clean Air Act day at the Supreme Court, as the justices issued two long-awaited opinions in cases involving the scope of the EPA's power under the Clean Air Act.
The marquee case was Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the Court held, 5-4, that (a) states have standing to sue the EPA alleging injuries from climate change, (b) the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as "pollutants" under the Clean Air Act, and (c) the EPA did not adequately justify its decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Act. On remand, the EPA must ground its decision whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions on the nature and magnitude of the risk posed by climate change, as the CAA requires.
As longtime readers know, I disagree with the Court's first two conclusions. I do not believe that the petitioners had standing (as argued by Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent), nor do I believe that Congress delegated the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Given that the Court concluded otehrwise on these two points, however, I think it is very difficult to argue, as the EPA did, that the EPA declined to exercise its regulatory authority on statutorily permissible grounds. I will have more to say about the case once I've had a chance to read all of the opinions.
The Supreme Court also issued its opinion in Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy unanimously siding with the EPA's interpretation of the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act. I blogged about the case here, and I hope to have more to say about this case later today as well.
If the Founders were told that a State thought that the Federal Government's lawlessness was causing the State grave injury to its economy, and that an opinion would not be advisory and would force prompt federal action, do you really think the Founders have held that there is no "case" and no "controversy" at stake? Seems implausible.
There is some thought that it might, possibly (though the most plausible estimates for the next century are at most, what, a foot and a half of sea-level rise? Please.) ... but the real problem comes even beyond that - US CO2 isn't the primary cause of any of it.
Asking for a non-remedy to a theoretical future harm is not much of a case, nor a controversy, is it?
Of course, Congress could fix all this in a few hours, should it desire to. Possibly it will; this Pandora's Box gores oxen all over the country, to very little particularized benefit even if the assumptions are correct.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't worry about this going down the slippery slope to that level of regulatory control, but environmentalists aren't exactly noted for their lack of extremism when it comes to control the lives of others.
I was wondering about the latter myself. Given that only human emissions of C02, direct and indirect, can be controlled, the most efficient way to reduce those is with mandatory abortions enforcing strict birth control limits.
Adler said "On remand, the EPA must ground its decision whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions on the nature and magnitude of the risk posed by climate change, as the CAA requires."
If risk is a primary consideration, then there is little doubt that the global warming MIGHT have a huge impact on global climate (although it's local effects might be uncertain). Does the CAA mandate imposing serious regulation irrespective of costs and/or benefits? Does the CAA permit consideration of the US benefits vs. the that of the world? This is a case where the benefits of regulation are diluted by global pollution - unlike typical local impact pollution most human caused CO2 is generated outside the United States, and projections are that the US will continue to decline in its contribution as India and China develop.
Does SCOTUS intend to 'make' the Republic regulate its own emissions, regardless of social/economic costs or the diluted benefits?
It depends on whether five of the superannuated geezers feel Algore's movie is actually a documentary with real facts.