Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to review a case that alleges the Environmental Protection Agency broke the rules in 2009 to describe carbon dioxide, which is essential for life, as a danger and through rules and regulations take control of the nation’s economy.
It is this claim, that CO2 poses a health threat, that is the foundation for most of the “green” energy projects today, the alternative wind, solar and battery projects, the increasing mileage requirements for vehicles and the billions of dollars in government spending that has been designated for this issue.
Attorneys with the Pacific Legal Foundation have asked the justices to accept the case for review, arguing that the agency adopted the new standard describing CO2 as a danger without allow the decision to undergo a mandatory review by scientists expert on the question.
“Because carbon dioxide is everywhere, the Endangerment Finding empowers EPA to regulate the nation’s physical, economic and social infrastructure,” the pleading explains. “It bears repeating: This court in Massachusetts v. EPA, which also involved carbon dioxide, determined that the writ of certiorari should be granted because of ‘the unusual importance of the underlying issue.’
“If ever there were an issue of exceptional importance to the nation, it is to be found in the Endangerment Finding. The possibility that a finding of such great moment was made illegally provides ample justification for granting the writ.”
“We are asking the Supreme Court to hear this case because EPA cannot be allowed to place itself above the law,” said PLF Staff Attorney Ted Hadzi-Antich. “In issuing its CO2 finding, EPA illegally shielded its work product from peer review. That’s unacceptable as a matter of science, impermissible as a matter of law – and should be downright offensive for anyone concerned about openness, accountability, and integrity in the public sector.”
The dispute is over the EPA’s announcement in December 2009 that carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles pose a danger to public health. With that announcement, the Clean Air Act kicked in, and required the EPA to create regulations that control the emissions.
However, before those rules are allowed, the Clean Air Act itself “requires that such regulations must first be submitted to EPA’s Science Advisory Board…”
That, the foundation explains, never was done, even though it was mandatory.
That means the nation’s rules and regulations concern CO2 emissions could very well be illegitimate.
The foundation first petitioned the agency in February 2010 to withdraw the announcement and allow the scientists who are expert in the field to get involved.
When EPA refused, the foundation filed a federal lawsuit and it’s headed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Washington Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government’s argument the EPA simply could impose the rules it chose.
The advisory panel is a team of top scientists from universities, research institutions and other highly regarded organizations, empowered by federal law to review any new “criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation” that EPA proposes to issue under the Clean Air Act.
“EPA’s decision to cut procedural corners is especially troubling given the heavy cost to the economy that could result from the endangerment finding,” Hadzi-Antich said. “The greenhouse gas ruling could lead to unprecedented federal intrusion into the private sector and the entire economy, by exposing every activity that emits CO2 to new federal regulations.”
The impact of the feds’ rule-making is not slight, with estimates of the paperwork costs of the system reaching $22.5 billion alone.
WND reported several years ago on the complicated fight, revealing that according to a study at the time, the regulations, if applied to reduce the overall earth’s temperature by a single degree, would cost consumers around the globe $700 trillion, seven times the world’s gross production.
There was a report at the time released by Sen. James Ihnofe, R-Okla., then-ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, that quoted the EPA’s own stats and experts to break down the numbers, including one researcher who called the Obama administration’s plan “absurd.”
Citing a study by the EPA’s Dr. Linda M. Chappell and various other sources, the Senate report said, “EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the [Clean Air Act] ‘absurd,’ affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs, causing ‘at least a decade or longer’ of permit delays, ‘slowing’ construction nationwide for years, ‘introducing burdens that are administratively ‘infeasible,’ ‘overwhelming,’ that will ‘adversely affect national economic development,’ while impacting sources ‘not appropriate at this point to even consider regulating.’”
And the net effect of the greenhouse gas regulations that the Republican senators condemned?
The EPA calculates in 75 Federal Register 25,495: “Global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 degrees Celsius by 2100.”
So in effect, by the year 2100, 90 years worth of $78 billion per year in spending – a total of over $7 trillion – would have lowered the earth’s temperature infinitesimally.
The EPA’s pertinent regulations create new limits for everything that releases CO2, from power plants, refineries and large industrial plants to cars.