Acton Institute Powerblog Archives

Post Tagged 'massachusetts v. epa'

Federalism and the EPA

There’s a lingering issue that continues to bother me about the so-called “global warming” Supreme Court case from 2007, Massachusetts v. EPA (05-1120), and that is a nagging concern about federalism and environmental standards. Continue Reading...

Global Warming Media Day

It’s global warming media day at the NYT and elsewhere following the SCOTUS decision on Massachusetts v. EPA: Linda Greenhouse, “Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases,” New York Times. Continue Reading...

EPA Must Examine Climate Change Link

The Supreme Court ruled today (5-4) in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA (05-1120) “that the federal government had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that may contribute to global warming, and must examine anew the scientific evidence of a link between those gases and climate change.” Toward the end of last year some were arguing that “this case is not about the science of climate change. Continue Reading...

‘There’s no injury if there’s not global warming.’

I have read through the opening arguments (PDF) in Massachusetts, et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (05-1120) conducted yesterday morning before the Supreme Court. From a layperson’s perspective I would have to say that Jonathan Adler’s characterization of the nature of the proceedings in not quite correct. Continue Reading...

Carbon Dioxide’s Day in Court

The Supreme Court is hearing a case today brought by 12 states and a coalition of environmental groups that sued the Bush administration in 2003 for refusing to issue regulations limiting carbon emissions. Continue Reading...

Climate Change Hype Reaches Supreme Court

Right about now, the Supreme Court of the United States should be hearing the beginning arguments in Massachusetts, et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (05-1120). Not much attention has been paid to this case over the last few months, but recently a spate of media attention has arisen, citing this case as perhaps “the most important environmental case in many years,” as well as “one of the biggest environmental cases in years.” (Jonathan Adler responds to the NYT editorial at The Volokh Conspiracy.) There are reasons to doubt the hype surrounding this case, however, and not just because of the dubiousness of the scientific “consensus” on climate change. Continue Reading...