Global Warming: A Lawsuit That Should be DOA

By May 8, 2006Global Warming

Ten states have sued the EPA to try to force judicial recognition of the theory of global warming. What’s interesting about this is that a similar lawsuit — this one against utility companies — was thrown out in September of last year by the US District Court of the Southern District of New York. In her opinion, the judge (rightly) said that “Cases presenting political questions are consigned to the political branches that are accountable to the people, not to the judiciary, and the judiciary is without power to resolve them.” Amen to that.

Here’s a link to that decision. Maybe somebody should send it to these various plaintiff states who obviously need a little refresher. This LA Times article also notes that, “a three-judge panel ruled last July that the EPA acted properly in rejecting a plea by 12 states, including California, to require reductions in gases linked to global warming.” Seems these states are determined to continue to push their theories through the courts that apparently aren’t having any of it.

Join the discussion 3 Comments

  • TokyoTom says:

    Whoa, what’s going on here – TEN STATES and their governors and attorneys general have also swallowed the Kool-Aid of “climate change” and are on a rampage, wasting millions of taxpayers’ dollars, suing the EPA and the five largest electric utilities ? Why? Don’t they know that air pollution and climate change are good for them and their citizens?

    Or do they think there’s some actual damage going on, but political decisions in Washington mean that various downwind states just have to lump it?

    I’m with NAM that it really should be Congress, and not the courts, that takes action on climate change. This would be consistent with the majority resolution agreed by the Senate last year that it should take meaningful action, and as Republican Senator Pete Domenici’s Energy Committee is now considering – such legislation would be much better than having judges measure the amount of damages and coming up with remedies. The Administration should also get cracking on lighting a fire under China and India, to limit the future damage that will be caused by their growing CO2 emissions. But until Congress acts, I can understand that states that have been hurt by air pollution and climate change take action under federal nuisance law.

    Evolution, gravity, special relativity, quatnum mechanics – they’re all just “theories” – why do manufacturers pay heed to them? Because they’re predictive and work. Same with the theories of thermodynamics that underly most manufacturing provesses and the form the basis of climate change “theory”. Granted, the climate system is complicated and results are not wholly linear, but so is what you guys do.

    So why does NAM continue to fog on climate change? Simply because you’d like to keep on imposing costs on the rest of the world and our future for free, and acknowledging there’s a problem means that costs will be involved. But if we care about actually solving problems instead of hoping they will just go away (is that really what you think about climate change – that it will just go away?), then we need to do something- and if that something is equitable and makes the release of greenhouse gases just a cost of doing business that everyone shares, then whose ox is gored, and how are American manufacturers disadvantaged?

    Why can’t you guys be a principled part of the solution, instead of perpetuating and exacerbating the problem? Why do you prefer to leave the moral high ground to enviros, many of whom have no clue about how the economy works?



  • Andrew M. says:

    Although it is understandable that the business world will try to deny anything that threatens to diminish its profits, I find your support of the denial of global warming quite staggering!

    The history books will preserve for all time what a destructive result such turning a blind eye can cause for our civilization as a whole. If you try to think of something other than economic profits for one millisecond and think about how your children and grandchildren will experience the catastrophic weather conditions you are bringing on yourself then maybe you will wake up and realize that when 12 states feel there is a serious case, then maybe, just maybe they have a point.

  • Larry Saltzman says:

    In dismissing Global Warming as theory, I wonder if you understand the scientific definition of a theory. Global Warming is a theory like Relativity and Evolution that has been proven and is accepted by vast majority of scientists working in the field as proven.

    To resist efforts to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions is shorted sighted and puts your organization on the side of groups whose efforts may well lead to the destruction of civilization. We have run out of time to act. If in World War II, American businesses behaved as many businesses are today we would have lost the war.