The Reversal
In a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that the Chevron deferment doctrine could no longer be used by the judicial system (Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo). The Chevron doctrine dates back to 1984 and was a SCOTUS decision deferring interpretation of ambiguous legislation to executive branch agencies. The current SCOTUS reversed Chevron on grounds that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act and separation of powers.
The Court clearly stated that matters of legislative ambiguity are precisely what courts are set up to parse and interpret. They also took a skeptical view of executive agencies ruling on their own regulatory dictates.
Clean Air Act Ambiguity
The EPA’s designation of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act is precisely
the sort of executive overreach that the Court was addressing. A previous SCOTUS followed the Chevron doctrine in Massachusetts v EPA (2007) and opened the door to EPA CO2 rulemaking. The EPA, in the absence of legislation, issued an “endangerment finding” in 2009 and designated CO2 as a global warming air pollutant. Thus was the “global warming”/”climate change” cabal born in an end run around Congressional approval.
The ambiguity under Chevron that the EPA utilized was not the intent of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990 (last amended). The CAA was drafted and signed into law to reduce and regulate toxic air pollutants (think mineral acids, chlorinated solvents and numerous other synthetic chemicals). The substances and levels listed under the act are compounds and substances with acute and/or chronic toxicity.
Carbon dioxide has NO toxic characteristics. It is simply a benign byproduct of combustion and, as such, is an atmospheric emission. The EPA used the absence of CO2 in the CAA as an argument of ambiguity and reserved the new interpretation to itself.
Have Global Warming/Climate Change Predictions Proven Accurate?
“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.”
If global warming isn’t reversed by the year 2000, it will be too late to avert catastrophe
Al Gore famously predicted in 2008 that the Arctic would be ice free within five years — so by 2013.
The answer to the above question is: Uh, no!
Why the failed predictions?
The climate cabal has failed to accurately predict relationships between greenhouse gases
and natural catastrophes for a simple reason: over-reliance on computer modeling of complex systems. In the movie “Oppenheimer” the famed physicist was astonished upon learning that the atom was split under experimental conditions by a different research group since the mathematics of the day did not support the possibility. He was admonished by an associate that theories require actual empirical testing or they remain theories.
Before the climate cabal is allowed to change the entire structure of the world’s energy systems it is necessary to question the assumptions made when creating climate models (theories!). Who made them? Who pays them? Have they been peer reviewed? How can they be empirically validated? These are just a few basic questions needing answers rather than blind acceptance of “the science.”
The States Get Another Bite at the Apple
West Virginia, Texas and a host of other states have pushed back hard on the EPA green dictates that harm their local economies. They have had limited success to this point. West Virginia was victorious in 2022 in WV v EPA but a group of 12 States led by Missouri met with defeat in 2023 when SCOTUS ruled for lack of standing.
Standing should not be an issue going forward, now that agencies have had their interpretation privileges revoked. State Attorney Generals will now be entitled to question the “endangerment finding” of a compound not defined as toxic under the CAA and courts will no longer be allowed to defer to the EPA.
Can the Green New Deal Survive Without Chevron?
Much of the Green New Deal has been
advanced through the sale of fear. The failed predictions listed earlier are just a sampling of the unabashed gaslighting inflicted on the public. Now that states and corporations can challenge unsubstantiated climate claims in court without the heavy thumb of the EPA on the scale we may see healthy scientific and judicial discourse.
Convention of States Action has been in the vanguard of asserting the primacy of the “Several States” over the Federal government. The defeat of the Chevron doctrine gives added ammunition for the COS Article V process to limit Federal overreach. If you agree that the Chevron decision was a victory for “We the People” and states’ rights then you are encouraged to sign the petition for an Article V convention below. You will be asserting your right to be heard and protecting your wallet and way of life.
