The Endangerment Litigation

by Daniel Farber | June 01, 2011

Cross-posted from Legal Planet.

I’ve just spent some time reading the initial briefs in the D.C. Circuit on the endangerment issue.  They strike me as much more political documents than legal ones.

A brief recap for those who haven’t been following the legal side of the climate issue.  After the Bush Administration decided not to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases would be covered if they met the statutory requirement of endangering human health or welfare.  After much stalling by the Bush administration, EPA followed the scientific consensus by finding that (1) yes, climate change is real and caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, and (2) that climate change would indeed harm humanity (including Americans).  That determination is now being challenged by states such as Texas and Virginia and various other parties like the Chamber of Commerce.

Why do I say that the documents seem more legal than political to me?  Two reasons: they rely on debaters’ points that don’t survive examination of the record, and they are crafted to appeal primarily to ideological fellow-travelers rather than the open-minded.

First, like much political argument, briefs make assertions that depend for their credibility on the unwillingness or inability of the audience to engage in fact-checking.  For example, they assert that EPA delegated its decision-making to outside groups like the IPCC; it’s plain to anyone who reads the EPA ...

The Other Shoe Drops: EPA Finally Issues Endangerment Finding

by Daniel Farber | December 07, 2009
Today, EPA made its long-expected official finding: climate change is real, and we human beings are the cause. More than two years after the Supreme Court ordered EPA to address the issue, EPA has now formally ruled that greenhouse gases cause climate change that endangers human health or welfare. EPA also found that motor vehicles contribute significantly to levels of greenhouse gases. These findings trigger regulation under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles. Similar findings are likely in the ...

Would a CO2 "Monkey Trial" Improve Scientific Integrity and Transparency?

by Holly Doremus | August 26, 2009
Cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet. As reported in the L.A. Times and Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has petitioned EPA to hold a trial-type hearing before finalizing its proposed finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. (We blogged about the proposed endangerment finding here.) The main argument in the petition is that a formal hearing is required to effectuate the administration’s stated commitment to scientific integrity and transparency. Don’t be fooled. Scientific integrity ...

Workers' Memorial Day 2018

Tracy | Apr 25, 2018 | Workers' Rights

Recipe: Turning the House's Lemon of a Farm Bill into Lemonade

Ristino | Apr 25, 2018 | Environmental Policy

Scholars Call Out Congressional Committee for 'Mythification' of NEPA

Goodwin | Apr 24, 2018 | Environmental Policy

Promoting Energy Innovation

Farber | Apr 13, 2018 | Energy

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015