The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Supreme Court Turns Away Red State Effort to Block Social Cost of Carbon
Without opinion the justices rejected Louisiana's application to vacate a lower court stay.
The effort by Louisiana and other states to prevent federal agencies from relying upon the Biden Administration's Social Cost of Carbon estimates has run aground in the Supreme Court. Today, without opinion, the justices denied the states' application to vacate a lower court stay. The Court's denial was not a surprise.
Louisiana's lawsuit had met with some initial success. In February, a federal district court in the Bayou State enjoined all federal agencies from relying upon the Social Cost of Carbon estimate. As I explained at the time, the district court's opinion made an absolute hash out of the relevant administrative law principles. Accordingly (and unsurprisingly) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit swiftly stayed the injunction. Louisiana then sought en banc review, without success, leading to their petition with the Supreme Court.
As I have noted in my prior posts, reasonable people may differ on the methodology used by the Biden Administration to calculate a Social Cost of Carbon, as well as on the extent to which incorporating such considerations into federal agency analyses and decision-making does much to mitigate the risks posted by climate change. The theory of the suit, however, was something else, and the initial district court order was wrong on multiple levels, merely as a matter of administrative law. Thus it is no surprise that not even a single judge on the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court was willing to note their opinion that the injunction should stand.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well OK then, the voters are going to have to settle this one.
"Social Cost of Carbon" ???
Well seeing how every Ethyl Alcohol molecule contains 5 Carbon atoms, and every Co-Kie-ain-a molecule has 17, Sleepy's son is gonna take a hit (yeah, right, like his taxes are in order)
Oh, they aren't regulating the Carbon and Cocaine, how about a tax on Cremation? as wasteful as tradition embalming/burial is, the CO2/H2O generated is spread out over decades, instead of a few minutes (see the end of the Original "Ocean's 11"
Frank "OE Eleven, OE Eleven...."
I'm not sure of the point you're making here, but I feel you should at least get the chemistry right--ethyl alcohol is C2H5OH.
That was a test to see if you were paying attention,
you passed.
Does the debate over the social cost of carbon get repeated in every challenge to a rule that uses it? In the abstract, looking past the APA procedural rules, It would be advantageous to have it litigated only once with each side bringing the best arguments.
Second the motion. It seems like the same issues are litigated over and over again.
Why does it seem that the SC is always deciding issues on the narrowest of grounds.
The government might be able to gin up an issue preclusion argument that would foreclose e a lot of the relitigation. Mainly this would be an excuse to use the delightful phrase "defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel."
The fact that an executive action came from a perverted child sniffer who poops his diapers is enough reason to enjoin that action.
Nice try. But I think you’ll find that setting your pants on fire won’t warm your ass or help you get an erection like you’re hoping.
Social cost of carbon is a fictitious concept invented by anti-fossil fuel activists
I think it's one of the more rational parts of the climate hyperbole crisis. We have to compare costs and benefits rather than emotions.
I agree comparing costs vs benefits instead of emotions, though the correct analysis is to compare marginal costs vs marginal benefits. Using cost benefit will often lead to erroneous conclusions.
That being said, the "social cost of carbon" is fictitious including costs simply made up.
One of the claims is the fossil fuels "dont pay for those social costs"
Kinda like claiming farmers dont pay for the social costs for the byproduct of food after human consumption.
One of the claims is the fossil fuels "dont pay for those social costs"
I think the claim is that the consumers of fossil fuels don't pay for the social costs of their consumption.
One of the benefits of markets is that they make consumers pay for the resources they use, and this is supposed to efficient uses of resources. If you buy a shirt you are indirectly paying for the cloth, the dye, transportation to the store, etc. The externality problem, which arises often in environmental matters, is people or companies using resources without paying for them, leading to overuse. Someone else pays the bill for your consumption.
Carbon taxes proposals deal with this by imposing a charge on the fossil fuel companies, which of course pass through somewhat to the consumer.
Bernard - you cant ignore my first point - which is most if not all of the claimed Externality costs / "social costs of carbon " is fictitious BS. Imaginary stuff in the minds of the activists
Well, if you are talking about climate change, or about other externalities from fossil fuel use, which is what I think you are doing, I disagree with you.
So whether I'm ignoring it or not, I certainly don't accept it as true.
Courts failing at their job again. Proper response of the court to this is "This clearly violates law and the Constitution. Enough said. Policy is enjoined permanently."
But because they like the result, and hate doing their job of protecting the public, they love long twisted illogical arguments about how this is okay.
Sad.
The threat of global warming is a pressing issue. If we want to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we must act quickly and use the most up-to-date scientific information.
Kind regards,
Dr. Howard Katz
https://dentox.com
That culture war is not over, but it has been settled.
The better ideas, and people, have won.
When things don't go your way, it's a helluva move to just become a nihilist and declare it's time to stop caring about any of America's foundational institutions.
Because you just love America so much you hate it.
Herschell Walker?? I believe you've got it "Reverend"
No, the American people have been replaced.
Walker? The guy who boasted about graduating at the top of his class . . . but in the reality-based world never graduated?
And's made millions more than your hole-lie-ness? and don't see you running for the Senate unless.......... "Reverend"??? "A-hole"????
"Anti Semitic much? (more like all the time("
REVEREND WAR-LOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DROP THE NOM-DE-QUEER!!!!!!!!!
still won't vote for you, you Antisemitic Prick,
Frank