So much is at stake, and the people arguing and deciding the fight over EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations are frustratingly clueless.
During today’s arguments at the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over the EPA’s greenhouse gas rules, Reagan-appointee and Chief Judge David Sentelle and Clinton-appointee David Tatel were reportedly upset because industry lawyers seemed to want to re-argue global warming science, despite the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.
According to Greenwire:
Patrick Day of the Coalition for Responsible Regulation argued that the finding “erroneously decided to completely divorce” the risk assessment from the agency’s regulatory decisions. EPA’s inadequate endangerment finding, he said, authorizes “ineffective and perhaps even fruitless regulations.”
Judge David Tatel, who was particularly aggressive in questioning both sides, sharply dismissed Day’s logic.
“I do not understand your argument,” he said. “Why don’t you try again?”
Tatel and Sentelle both seemed concerned that the petitioners were asking the court to overturn the scientific basis for EPA’s endangerment finding or the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts. Both judges indicated that was not their job.
Earth to all involved, as we reported in “Supremes retreat from climate panic,” the global warming rationale of Massachusetts v. EPA was entirely trashed in the June 2011 Supreme Court decision, AEP v. Connecticut.
So while the legal holding of Massachusetts v. EPA stands, it’s factual basis are very much in dispute.
Let’s hope they all try again.
[h/t Chris Horner]