A federal court has upheld a finding by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) that man-made greenhouses gases pose a threat to public
health that requires the EPA by law to impose limits on the emissions causing
the danger.
The unanimous decision rejected the arguments raised by the
hacks hired by some (but not all) utilities, manufacturing companies and
business associations. Those who brought the lawsuit against the EPA were trying
to sell the old myth that the very idea that the Earth is warming is based on
unreliable studies. Luckily, the judges could read and therefore understand
with great clarity that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports the
science of global warming.
As even The Wall Street Journal’s anti-EPA version of the news admits, there is little room in the decision
for appeal, as the judges noted several times how strongly the law backed the
EPA’s position. Despite the great odds of winning, though,
Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia said the
state plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Virginia was one of 14 states that sued to block the EPA
rules; the list of other states that joined in the lawsuit against the best
interests of their citizens reads like a roll call of Tea Party hotspots:
Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota and Texas, for example.
That 15 states, including California, Massachusetts, New
Mexico, New York and Oregon, supported the EPA regulations underscores the deep
divisions we have in the country right now. To a great extent, those divisions
have occurred because one side insists on spewing out lies and questioning the
validity of proven science.
In the case of global warming, there are two sets of lies:
1) that environmental regulations hurts the economy; 2) that the science of
global warming is not yet proven. The
judges did not have to deal with the first set of lies. To the second, it
answered with crushing clarity, exemplified by the most quoted part of the
decision: “This is how science works. The
EPA is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it
approaches a scientific question.”
We should celebrate this victory for everyone—since everyone
has to breathe the air and many millions are suffering and will suffer from the
severe economic dislocations that extreme weather and resource shortages are
causing and will continue to cause.
But in this victory, let’s also look at the sober fact: The
appeals court ruled that it was okay for the EPA to make its decisions based on
scientific truth. Opposed to this
proposition were the politicians of 14 states and the lawyers of many companies
and associations. Their efforts, backed by millions of dollars, slowed down
implementation of anti-pollution regulations for some 5 years.
They also acted against the wishes of their constituencies, according to a 2012 study of the public’s attitudes on energy and theenvironment conducted by George Mason’s University’s Center for Climate Change Communications. In a study that received absolutely zero publicity, George Mason researchers found that:
·
72 % of Americans think that addressing global warming should be a
very high priority.
·
92 % of Americans think that developing sources of clean energy
should be a very high priority.
·
83 % of Americans think that protecting the environment either
improves economic growth and provides new jobs (58%) or has no effect on
economic growth or jobs (25%).
Thus
even with the law, the truth and the public on its side, the EPA still had to
slog through 5 years of legal proceedings just to demonstrate that, indeed, the
government can make a decision based on facts.