The Supreme Court eyes the EPA

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to review whether its past decisions to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate auto and truck emissions of various gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA) also justified granting EPA the ability, without legislative authority, to perform the identical regulation of stationary energy producing facilities.

The court must now realize that EPA may have exceeded the original intent of the Clean Air Act. Even Democratic Congressman John Dingell (Mich.), the father of the law, has been quoted as saying that they never intended that the CAA would regulate carbon dioxide.

The problem began in 2007 when the Court ruled that EPA could determine if CO2 was a dangerous pollutant.  Instead of performing a comprehensive internal study as normally expected, the EPA has said publically that it relied on an existing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (IPCC) that indicated CO2 was likely to cause catastrophic global warming. 

ADVERTISEMENT
Therefore, the EPA concluded the report meant that CO2 could be considered a dangerous pollutant. In fact, the scientist at the EPA had determined and informed the agency that available data did not support the conclusion that CO2 was likely to cause catastrophic warming.

Since that time, reams of real data and observations have shown that the un-validated climate models that the IPCC has counted on are unreliable and should not be considered in making intermediate or long-term climate projections and policy decisions.
 
Incredibly, the IPCC's flawed science serves as a critical basis of EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases despite the fact that Earth has not warmed for 16 years even while atmospheric CO2 levels, present in the Earth’s atmosphere 24/7, have continued a steep rise.  This fact alone argues strongly against the assertions that carbon dioxide is the major driver of climate change.  The rate and magnitude of warming in the 20th century is clearly not unprecedented as indicated by multiple temperature reconstructions, which renders the IPCC’s statement to be false.
 
For the true environmentalists, who have been misled by the EPA’s condemnation of CO2 as a dangerous pollutant, recent studies have further strengthened the evidence that the addition of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere via the usage of the fossil fuels oil, natural gas and coal, has had very positive effects on the plant and animal kingdoms and humanity in general.

The most recent report by Dr. Craig Idso, President of CO2 Science at CO2 science.org, summarizes the tremendous social and economic benefits of just the past increases in carbon dioxide and determined that the addition of just another 300 parts per million of CO2 would increase plant growth by 25 to 55 percent.  In addition, thousands of peer-reviewed studies documented in Climate Change Reconsidered, also authored by Dr. Idso and others, found that an increase of CO2 to these levels would increase the growth of Earth’s eight most consumed food crops by 39 percent.  So ironically, if plants and all the starving people on Earth could vote, they would probably choose the continued use of coal from which the most CO2 is emitted.  While these statements may seem quite unusual to many readers, they are based on real data, scientific research and observations. 

It is my hope that the Supreme Court will thoroughly scrutinize the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations and rule that the agency has simply gone too far this time.   Hopefully, this examination will continue to reveal the Obama administration’s mission is based on flawed science.    
 
Steward is a geologist, environmentalist, and a non-paid chairman of PlantsNeedCo2.com, a 501 (C)(3) non-profit corporation.