Putsch Cools his Heels

But global warming makes Scaly hot under the collar

© Bryan Zepp Jamieson
4/7/07
http://www.mytown.ca/zepp

People have been thrilled about the Supreme Court decision last week, Massachusetts vs. EPA, which ruled that CO2 was in fact a pollutant, and that the Environmental Protection Agency therefore had a legal responsibility to regulate it.

The far right people were utterly aghast, of course, but then, they are usually utterly aghast about something. This was just greenhouse aghast this time. They are convinced that it’s all a plot to destroy the American economy. Apparently the mighty American industrial engine, poor, timorous, shivering wee beastie that it is, will utterly collapse if asked to maintain the sorts of pollution standards that they have inflicted on such third-world hellholes as Canada, or California.

I can’t find much about this decision to be thrilled about, though. It’s a bit like learning that the Supreme Court had ruled, 5-4, that the world actually is a globe, with two snarling dissents written by the minority declaring “round earthism” to be bogus, politically motivated “science” that is designed to destroy industry.

That is the point we’re at with global warming.

According to the preface of the ruling at the SC, the core of the dispute was Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), which requires the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to set emission standards for “any air pollutant” from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines “which in his judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

Gasses linked to global warming, which may cost humanity trillions of dollars and millions of lives, might fall under that category. One might think, anyway.

Four justices – Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts – were bound and determined to declare that CO2 was not a pollutant, had little or nothing to do with global warming if it existed at all, and that the government had no power to do anything about it even if it did. Scaly, who partook in both written dissents, penned, “It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an ‘air pollutant.' This reading of the statute defies common sense.”

If frisbees STAYED in the air long enough to have a detrimental effect, either directly or indirectly, on humans, then the notion that they might be considered a pollutant might be entertained. Flatulence IS a pollutant, and in fact, methane from the vast herds of cattle devoted to keeping America rotund and tachycardial is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases. Tony apparently didn’t know that.

One of the issues to be decided in the case was that of “standing.” It was argued that states could not sue the EPA to enforce federal regulations concerning tailpipe emissions because the states had not received immediate and personal injury from the lax approach the EPA took on the matter. States rights enthusiasts Scalia and Thomas were particularly vehement in insisting that the federal government did not have to factor in the wishes or well-being of the states when making policy decisions. That was cute. (In fact, the majority opinion noted that standing didn’t rest on the ability of states to have standing, as there were other petitioners in the case who did, but Stevens maintained that they did, citing Holmes’ decision in Georgia vs. Tennessee Copper, in which Holmes cited the “quasi-sovereign” nature of states in which he cited an independent interest that lay in the fact that it represented the interests of the citizens of that state. Roberts, a states-righter back in the day, snarled that Stevens had devised “a new doctrine of state standing.” Apparently conservatives now believe that states should just shut up and do whatever the federal government tells them to do).

Roberts came up with his own unique reason to not declare CO2 a pollutant and thus part of an EPA administrative purview: he said the expected damages from global warming were “conclusionary” and that because no specific number for the expected damages could be generated, the EPA had no responsibility to do anything about it. He apparently was involved in a similar ruling in 2004, in which an appeals court ruled that because there was no way to quantify the damage New Orleans might suffer in the event of levee failure, the federal government had no role in having to shore up the levees.

But Roberts, while a Potemkin figure of a judge like so many “officials” in this plunder administration, at least isn’t a loon. He doesn’t try to pretend that there is no global warming, or that it isn’t human-generated. He just thinks that the rights of corporations come ahead of the rights of people, and if global warming comes, people should just adapt.

Scalia is under no such constraints, of course. Scaly argued that the head of the EPA has sole discretionary power to decide if the EPA should enforce emissions controls on CO2, basing it on language in the Clean Air Act which says, “shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

So Scaly is arguing, in effect, that Congressional mandates and scientific data notwithstanding, national policy on pollution should rest entirely in the personal judgement of one political appointee.

Kinda takes your breath away, doesn’t it?

Scaly then quotes the agency, which justified its hand-washing of responsibility for CO2 emissions by saying “the President has laid out a comprehensive approach to climate change that calls for near-term voluntary actions and incentives along with programs aimed at reducing scientific uncertainties and encouraging technological development so that the government may effectively and efficiently address the climate change issue over the long term.” Paraphrased: Never mind what Congress mandated; the President says the auto companies promised to address the problem, so we don’t need to do anything about it! The political appointee doesn’t have to worry about it because the boss isn’t worried about it, and therefore the agency’s hands are tied!

Scaly goes on to complain that while the law is great about mandating when the EPA should do something, it doesn’t say a word about when the EPA should NOT do something. Never mind that the scientific arm of the EPA does exactly that (for example, when a species is considered for the Endangered Species List, in addition to compelling reasons why it should be listed, the scientists are expected to provide evidence to show why it should NOT be listed). Scaly wants to keep the head bureaucrat, the political appointee, free to vacillate indefinitely.

The horrifying thing about all this is that Scaly isn’t just a lone whack job on the Court. He’s got three others who are basically corporate toadies masquerading as judges, and who are willing to engage in lunatic parsing in order to support corporate rule of America through the GOP, for ever and ever, amen.

In the not-too-distant future, the court will have to rule on whether the President can recess appoint someone who has already been rejected by the Senate.

He’ll have four “justices” right off the bat who will be willing to swear that “advise and consent” is trumped by the president’s ability to make recess appointments.

One more death or retirement, and the GOP will have five such loons.

And America will have truly ceased to exist.