Conservative business interests have launched a legal assault, trying to get the conservative-packed Supreme Court to halt Obama's use of the EPA to fight climate change.
With a barrage of legal briefs, a coalition of business groups and Republican-leaning states are taking their fight against Obama administration climate change regulations to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The number of petitions filed is unusually large.
Those challenging the rules all cite the economic burden of the regulations and note that the EPA is making plans to regulate power plants. "The extension of these rules will cost tens, perhaps hundreds, of billions of dollars," lawyers for the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation said in its petition.
There is little sign the EPA is concerned about an adverse ruling. The agency is now looking at pushing ahead with regulating carbon dioxide from new and existing power plants, which account for nearly 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.
Heaven forfend the barons of industry should be separated from their quarterly profits. I rather wonder, then, what they're going to do when environmental conditions so frustrate their efforts at making a profit that they will finally see the forest for all those pesky trees!
Actually the day when Climate Disruption strangles the US economy may not be so far off.
With all the debate on the federal budget in Congress, climate change rarely gets mentioned as a deficit driver. Yet dealing with climate disruption was one of the largest non-defense discretionary budget items in 2012. Indeed, as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) shows in Who Pays for Climate Change?, when all federal spending on last year’s droughts, storms, floods, and forest fires are added up, the U.S. Climate Disruption Budget was nearly $100 billion, equivalent to 16 percent of total non-defense discretionary spending in the federal budget—larger than any official spending category.
That means that federal spending to deal with extreme weather made worse by climate change far exceeded total spending aimed at solving the problem. In fact, it was eight times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s total budget and eight times total spending on energy.