Supreme Court Decides that Federal Judges Shouldn't Regulate Greenhouse Gases

Six states had sued various electricity utility companies in federal court claiming that their emissions of carbon dioxide were a public nuisance. The states were asking federal judges to issue a decree capping carbon-dioxide emissions for each utility company which then would be further reduced annually. Yesterday, in an 8 to 0 ruling the Supreme Court declined [PDF] to allow federal judges to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The court ruled: 

The critical point is that Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants; the delegation displaces federal common law….

The appropriate amount of regulation in a particular greenhouse gas-producing sector requires informed assessment of competing interests. The Clean Air Act entrusts such complex balancing to EPA in the first instance, in combination with state regulators. The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than federal judges, who lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order. The plaintiffs' proposal to have federal judges determine, in the first instance, what amount of carbon-dioxide emissions is "unreasonable" and what level of reduction is necessary cannot be reconciled with Congress' scheme.

Basically, this means that the action returns to Congress where the Republican majority in the House of Representatives is trying to figure out a way to prevent the EPA from going forward with its efforts to ration carbon dioxide. 

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

Once again, the fate of the world rests in the hands of the regulators.

[KDN]

I'd prefer a bureaucratic despotism to a judicial one. It's much easier to change a stupid policy when an executive comes up with it than when a judge does. Just look at the giant hole created in NJ's budget as a result of the Abbott decision twenty years ago; Christie tried to pare funding for the "lower income" districts back a touch (including Hoboken, whose per capita income is 60% higher than state average, ranking 80th out of 702 municipalities) and was raked over the coals when the NJEA took him to court over it.

[Jerry]

This ruling seems to imply that the rule-making by such agencies as the EPA is actual constitutional.

[robc]

Without reading the ruling in detail, Im guessing they werent asked to decide that question.

[Michael Pack]

Yeah,let's let unnamed regulators make the law.Maybe give them some S.W.A.T teams to attack the CO2 cartels.

[GregorySmith3]

You want judges regulating greenhouses gases? That's insane! At least with the EPA you can limit their power, overrule them, maybe shut them down some day.

God help us if some judge decides to outlaw cars to save the planet.

[Almanian]

GREGGGGGOOOOOOOOOO!

[Mark E]

Sure, I want every aspect of my life controlled by some faceless, nameless drone in a cubbyhole somewhere in dc rather than a person who can be reasoned with, unelected or impeached.

Its not like the rules set by the epa are based on a fraud or anything.

[John]

And it is not like the people suing meant anything but harm. And when is the last time a judge was ever held accountable for anything. Congress can pass a law telling the bureaucracy to fuck off. Judges are all unaccountable tyrants.

[Brett L]

This. The summary of the ruling states pretty clearly that in SCOTUS's mind, Congress has the power to regulate CO2 emissions and based on current statute and case law appears to have delegated the regulation of CO2 to the EPA based on the current interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

[Oso Politico]

Do you know offhand if CO2 is mentioned explicitly in the act, or has the EPA on its own decided to treat it as a pollutant?

[John]

It is not. EPA just made it up.

[Brett L]

No, CO2 is not mentioned. I am unsure of whether it has or has not been classified by the EPA as a pollutant or not as yet.

[Bucky]

yes, the EPA has ruled CO2 is a pollutant...
next up, Cheerios...

[Almanian]

HEY! I like Cheerios! Of course, I like Carbon Dioxide, too, so I guess that has nothing to do with it.

Fucking EPA...

[Oso Politico]

If CO2 is a pollutant by its nature as a 'greenhouse' gas, doesn't that make water vapor even more of a pollutant/

[Brett L]

Yes. I think qualifying something that is (according to even the EPA) supposed to exist at 0.03% of air as a pollutant when it reaches 0.04% is asking for trouble. However, this is the problem with how Congress wrote the bill.

[Jerry]

But what gives administrators like those at the EPA the right to interpret what Congress meant when writing a bill? If the language is ambiguous, I expect a court to rule that the bill should be send back to Congress to fix the problem, instead of having some administrator 'fixing' the problem by his own wisdom. So if that means the federal government cannot set CO2 levels, so be it. You still have 50 states we can decide upon their own wisdom.

[Pro Libertate]

We really need to stop letting administrative agencies operate outside of their mandate. Along with not allowing Congress delegate inherent legislative powers.

[Michael Pack]

They can always make up their own numbers.Like the 16% of revenues brought in by pot by the drug cartels.It's only 50% less then every number I've seen from both sides of the WOD.If you can't win on the facts,change them.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Anybody play that "The Fate of the World" game that was on sale on Steam recently? Was it filled with as much hysterical eco-hilarity as I would expect?

[Ska]

Never heard of it. Is it some kind of armageddon sim? Can I submerge the west coast by using too many regular light bulbs?

[Somalian Road Corporation]

http://store.steampowered.com/app/80200/

[Bar Student]

Yeah, its a giant piece of propaganda and a shitty game too. You play the part of some UN agency that has the power to go in and tell people what to do. You can even send in "police" to put down riots over your energy restrictions.

[troy]

The critical point is that Congress delegated to EPA the decision

The critical point is that ever since SCOTUS allowed congress to delegate its authority, things started getting fucked up.

[Dave T.]

I can think of some people whose CO2 emissions could be considered a public nuisance.

[R C Dean]

Dude, that's methane. Still a greenhouse gas, though.

[OO]

"The Clean Air Act entrusts such complex balancing to EPA in the first instance, in combination with state regulators. The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than federal judges, who lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order."
_
obviously the roberts court does NOT agree that the EPA should be eliminated.

[coulter]

more damn judicial activism from the left

[MNG]

I actually agree with the decision, it's probably better for this kind of decision to be a political one rather than a bureaucratic one.

I don't think it's crazy to classify CO2 as a pollutant though as many here clearly do. If there's considerable evidence that CO2 is having damaging effects then it can reasonably be considered a pollutant.

[Almanian]

STOP BREATHING OUT YOUR POLLUTANTS AT ME, MNG!!! YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD!!

[Brett L]

I think it depends strongly on the meaning of pollutant, which to my mind is a foreign chemical that is harmful in nature. Since CO2 exists natively, it might be harmful in nature at concentration, but so is water. Water will never be declared a liquid pollutant even though it is currently destroying crops throughout the Mississippi basin.

[Car]

I think for something to be a pollutant in the sense people understand, it would need to be a minor and unnatural addition, not something that is expected to be present in large amounts in the ideal situation, but instead is present in somewhat larger amounts.

[R C Dean]

I actually agree with the decision, it's probably better for this kind of decision to be a political one rather than a bureaucratic one.

The decision makes it a bureaucratic one rather than a judicial one.

The real problem here is that major SCOTUS decisions are fundamentally wrong. On Commerce Clause, on the taxing power, on delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch . . . .

[mr simple]

where the Republican majority in the House of Representatives is trying to figure out a way to prevent the EPA from going forward with its efforts to ration carbon dioxide. 

It seems like the only time I can really get behind something one team is doing is when they are trying to block actions of the other team.

[Tman]

Ginsburg- "The Court remains mindful that it does not have creative power akin to that vested in Congress. It is altogether fitting that Congress designated an expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve as primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions. The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions. Federal judges lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order."

And as the WSJ reminds everyone this morning-

We'd go further and point out that Congress never granted the Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate CO2. The EPA has merely asserted that power with an assist from the pure policy invention of the Court itself in 2006's 5-4 Mass. v. EPA ruling. Still, the fact that every Justice rejected the new climate tort theory, and that the opinion was delivered by the most liberal Justice, shows how abusive it really was.