In yet another example of liberalism run amuck,
lawyers representing 12 states, 3 cities, and 3 environmental
groups last week argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in an
unprecedented effort to require the Environmental Protection
Agency to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant.
The lengths the left will go in order to circumvent
the political will of the American people never cease to amaze. Once again, the liberals are relying on like-minded judges to
affect change that does not have broad political support --
since it's much easier to win over 5 Supreme Court justices
than it is a majority of the Congress. The Founding Fathers
intended that such decisions be made by elected representatives
but, under the guise of environmentalism, the socialists still
try to enact their absurd legislations through the courts. It's also not surprising that the states (California, Connecticut,
Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington), the cities
(Baltimore, New York, Washington), and the organizations (Environmental
Defense Fund, Greenpeace, Sierra Club) are known for their liberal
leanings.
The suit began working its way up from the lower
courts after the EPA rejected a 1999 petition by the International
Center for Technology Assessment and other environmental groups
to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. The plaintiffs draw upon the broad language of the Environmental
Protection Act, which gives the federal government authority
to regulated "any air pollutant" emitted from an internal combustion
engine. Obviously, the outcome of the case hangs on whether
the majority of the justices consider carbon dioxide an air
pollutant even though it is a naturally occurring gas.
Carbon dioxide is the byproduct of carbon-based
fuels, which supply 85 percent of the energy Americans use. It is also the byproduct of human respiration. EPA will
have to require automakers to restrict production of SUVs and
large passenger cars, leading to the potential demise of the
auto industry itself. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs
will put the brakes on the fastest-growing industrialized economy
and 3rd most populous nation in the world.
The plaintiff's intention is to impose the standards
of the Kyoto Protocol, rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1999. Even though President Bush, significant congressional majorities,
and most voters oppose the Kyoto treaty, the a precedent-setting
decision in this case would establish a national energy-rationing
program almost identical to Kyoto in all sectors of energy production.
It's an understatement to say that the plaintiffs
are attempting to hamstring the American economy.
Isn't it hard enough to run a profitable business in the United
States without adding to the burden? Increased regulations
make goods and services much more expensive and put the United
States at a competitive disadvantage. Communism is now
widely understood as a failed philosophy, so the communists
must cloak their dogma. And the environmental movement
is a means of doing just that.
Although it's clear that the Earth's climate
is warming, no scientific evidence yet exists that directly
links global warming to human activity. Climatic conditions
vary from decade to decade. In the 1970's, for example,
there was much talk about "global cooling."
We are dependent upon the physical world we inhabit, so environmental
protection must remain a goal of the federal government; but
we are also dependent upon the economic growth for our high
standard of living, so the federal government must not jeopardize
the economy for the sake of the environment.
The Clean Air Act, passed by Congress in the 1960's and amended
about 10 years ago, has significantly improved air quality. Cooperation between state and local governments, the environmental
community, the private sector, and the federal government resulted
in greater protection of the environment. Recognizing
these achievements, the EPA must continue to protect the public
in a manner that does not harm the economy. The odds are
much greater that civilization will be adversely affected by
terrorists using nuclear weapons that it will by global warming.
