• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Court Upholds Greenhouse Gas Rule; Congress Needs to Step Up

    Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to public health and the environment. Although not a surprising decision, the ruling is a disappointing one. Unless Congress prohibits the EPA’s regulatory assault on fossil fuels, Americans will suffer from dramatically higher energy costs and a slower economy—all for no noticeable change in the Earth’s temperature.

    In 1999, several groups of environmental activists sued the EPA to force the agency to regulate carbon dioxide from motor vehicles. Eventually the case made it to the Supreme Court; in April 2007, the Court ruled that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are pollutants and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Court ordered the EPA Administrator to determine whether these CO2 emissions were dangerous to human health and the environment and whether the scientific consensus on the effects of GHGs was settled.

    In 2009, the EPA issued its decision, known as an endangerment finding, determining that carbon dioxide (a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas) is a pollutant—not because it has any direct human health impact, but because—according to some—it can lead to sea level rises, stressed water resources, increased size and quantity of wildfires, and other effects linked to global warming.

    Since the EPA has long ignored the disagreement among the scientific community regarding the EPA’s classification of CO2 as a pollutant as well as the magnitude of man-made warming, industry groups contested that the courts should reverse the EPA’s ruling on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious. When it comes to why climate change is occurring and how fast, the real scientific consensus is that there is no consensus. Despite a lack of scientific consensus, the challenge faced an uphill battle, because the courts are very deferential to agency fact-finding. The Supreme Court is unlikely to take up the case.

    We need a permanent fix to prevent unelected bureaucrats from regulating CO2 and from implementing major policy changes that have not been passed by Congress. The EPA is unnecessarily meddling with America’s energy markets and allowing the federal government to manage our economy.

    Regulating carbon dioxide will significantly increase energy prices and insignificantly reduce global temperatures. Since an overwhelming majority of our energy needs are met by fossil fuels, these rules directly raise the cost of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and home heating oil.

    But the pain doesn’t stop there. Businesses, faced with higher energy costs, will pass those costs on to consumers. However, if a company has to absorb the costs, high energy costs squeeze profit margins and prevent businesses from investing and expanding.

    The EPA’s regulations will not reduce CO2 enough to have any meaningful effect. Attempting to reduce CO2 unilaterally will have an insignificant impact on overall global emissions. Chinaand India’s CO2 emissions are rapidly increasing as they continue to expand their respective economies, and they have no intention of scaling back economic growth to curb emissions. Even if the EPA were to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 (what cap-and-trade bills called for), it would constitute a negligible portion of worldwide emissions and do nothing to impact global temperatures.

    The most effective approach to such harmful, bureaucratic regulatory undertakings would be to permanently prohibit any federal regulators from using greenhouse gas emissions as a reason to slow or prevent economic activity. A comprehensive approach would prevent the EPA and other federal regulators such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from using any environmental act to impose regulations based on climate findings, including the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

    Congress must stop the implementation of this drastic energy tax.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    14 Responses to Court Upholds Greenhouse Gas Rule; Congress Needs to Step Up

    1. MJF in CT says:

      Just what we need…. give the EPA more power and authority. They are becoming almost as powerful and the Gestapo was in Nazi Germany.

    2. Garthawk says:

      A no brainer. It must be oil subsidies. have any idea of all the by-products of oil. The windmill landscape doesn't give many kilowatt hrs, kills too many birds & ruins the landscape. The fed gov makes more off the sale of gas in the form of taxes than the oil companies make. It's only reasonable to subsidize an industry that makes the gov so much money. Subsidy of oil causes the cost of energy to go down & directly helps all citizens. We need Keystone, shale oil, gulf off shore oil, & anwr oil. We need it all to keep the US $ up as Europe crashes, and we must stop funding our enemy Arab Terrorists by supplying all our own oil. USA must be energy independent & build our inventions into the new energy age.

      • Will says:

        I would rather let everyone bid on selling us oil. If you limit it to American companies it may keep it un- necessarily high. The more competition the better. I do agree that "oil subsidies" really are only government returning a pittance of the monies they confiscate. Maybe we should let them all bid on supplying us with a certain percent of our oil.

    3. @Garthawk says:

      A no brainer. It must be oil subsidies. have any idea of all the by-products of oil. The windmill landscape doesn't give many kilowatt hrs

    4. BackwardsBoy says:

      The question to be asked is, why aren't we in control of our own government?

      • Roy S. Mallmann II says:

        We used to be a country of laws but when our elected officials are able to diregard the laws or portions of those laws, and other members of Congress for example do no stand up and correct them, then anarchy rules. Additionally when the mainstream media gives an inordinate amount of "news" time to the professional environmental groups these so called "crisis" creations take on a mind of their own and people assume they are true. My opinion is that man can do little or nothing to change the climate by limiting carbon emissions by whatever means as a forest fire or volcanic eruption would negate any savings. "during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" -George Orwell

    5. Lloyd Scallan says:

      It's all about Obama's "Cap and Trade" ploy being draged back into the spot light. Haven't we learned that whenever Obama has a plan that hastens the collapse of our financial system through the energy industry, it never dies. It just goes under cover until the radical environmentalist can find another court that thinks as they do. Regardless of the fact that man made global warming has been throughly proven to be a deliberate lie and distortion designed for the express purpose of Obama's "wealth distribution" policy, these anarchist will never stop as long as they have Obama and the DNC to chamption their cause..

    6. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      Would it be enough for Congress to simply amend the CAA and explicitly exclude CO2 & other GHGs from the list of pollutants? Perhaps the better approach would be to repeal the CAA, as well as the CWA for that matter, and simply allow the states to regulate their own pollutants. If CA, for example, wants to adopt EPA's aggressive pollutant definition, so be it. Leave energy-producing states alone. Someone has to provide cheap energy for everyone's AC, iPad and soon-to-be mandated electric car.

      How long before the EPA determines that a family of six with two combustion-engine vehicles and an AC summer-setting of 77 degrees is a public health endangerment? That is, after all, quite a CO2 footprint. Really…what is the end of all this?

    7. allen says:

      We have a President and ADM. that are Socialist, They have plan to control all of us with Social Plans. Do you think that China is going to cut back on production with Coal Power?The only way is to VOTE these people out and than make sure they never have a job, and let them live off Food Stamps . An eye for an eye.

    8. Al Louard says:

      Switch cars to natural gas. See Cub Energy ( KUB.V ) on TMX

    9. Stirling says:

      Humans expell C02 when we breathe, are the courts that stupid not to realize that fact. Get ready for the EPA to start the population control for the sake of the Enviroment now.. More Enviromental Wakos who need to be removed from the government.

    10. Darrell Mc Neill says:

      When will those in the government will ever understand that gobal warming doesn't really eixst? Ok, the enviro wakos have won another battle, yet have not won the war. What does the EPA say to family who have lost a paycheck? Sorry? America keeps shooting itself in the foot and the government as the doctor says that it's ok. Seems like the government doesn't want Americans to work and create wealth and have a good standard of living. Things must change soon or America will have lost all hope.

    11. Annie says:

      OK everyone. Do your part and stop breathing! It's all the people exhaling that's causing the problem! But then all the tree and plants would die and all the evironmentalists would be even more upset with that than the people dying!

    12. DWSchmidt says:

      Don't tell the EPA that water vapor is twenty times more efficient at trapping heat at the earth's surface than CO2, they will regulate that next. It is also present in the atmosphere at about 100 times the concentration of CO2. In fact, water vapor has been known to be present in such high concentration that it spontaneously PRECIPITATES out in big drops Oh, wait, there is no 'Big Water' to regulate to death in the progressive's attempt to control everything.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.