An Inconvenient Suit
Global warming makes strange bedfellows. Eight states are suing a group of coal-burning utilities on the grounds that their greenhouse gas emissions constitute a "public nuisance." Last week the Obama Administration filed an amicus brief siding with . . . the utilities. The Natural Resources Defense Council declared itself "appalled."
It's not that Obama likes utilities, of course, but the Administration argues that the EPA's emerging plans to regulate greenhouse gases pre-empts state action. I'm no expert on pre-emption, but I don't buy it. For example, the EPA also regulates lead paint, but the feds never tried to stop the rash of state nuisance lawsuits on lead, like this one in California.
My guess -- and it's just a guess -- is that the Administration doesn't want the state attorneys general stealing Obama's thunder and taking the credit for tackling global warming. The pre-emption argument makes global warming an exclusively federal concern. Hey, if global warming is so bad, don't the feds want all the help they can get?
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: An Inconvenient Suit
I'm sure you're right Adam. But what of these bands of roving attorneys general collectively suing things they don't like? We now have a blue team suing over carbon emissions and a red team suing over Obamacare. Has it always been thus? Or is this a new political phenom symptomatic of our rancorous age and polarizing president? Isn't there enough street crime to keep these guys busy? Aren't their resources sufficiently constrained putting bad guys in prison?
Edited on Aug 30, 2010 at 12:02pmJul '10
Re: An Inconvenient Suit
Ack. I very much dislike the term "greenhouse gas." The Earth is not a greenhouse.
Jun '10
Re: An Inconvenient Suit
Adam, I think your analysis is correct. I also shows the schizoid nature of policy-setting at the Obama White House. They spend all day meeting themselves coming around the corner.
One other thought: if all of the electric utilities in those eight states are public nuisances, then I'd suggest they shut their plants down, except of course their renewable sources. The lights and air conditioning would immediately go out, businesses would cease operating, and the economy in each of those states would come to a halt. I'd love to hear the press conference of the AG as he explains that this was the natural product of the lawsuit. Won't happen, of course, but one can dream.
Edited on Aug 30, 2010 at 12:26pmMay '10
Re: An Inconvenient Suit
Wow. I'm dumbfounded.
You might be right, Adam, but I find it hard to believe that the Administration thinks some federal legislation between now and November, or some executive action, will reclaim for Obama all the brownie points he will lose by siding with coal burners... after he specifically targeted the coal industry as an enemy during his campaign.
My guess is the Administration is either bowing to pressure from political donors, buying Congressional votes, or protecting some future legal strategy.
Re: An Inconvenient Suit
Trace: The state liability lawsuits over things like carbon, lead, cigarettes and asbestos are primarily driven by the states' hunger for revenue -- a way for a state to tax a product or service without having to call it a "tax" (secondarily, it's a gift to the plaintiffs' bar who sometimes get a piece of the action). With respect to Obamacare, there are some arguments that only states have standing to pursue. Having said that, some state AGs are probably hoping to boost their political fortunes by jumping on the lawsuit.
Aaron: your theories are even more sinister and, therefore, probably closer to the truth!