For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Snap! Obama Admin. Hates You Climate Creationist Wackos
Written By : William Teach

Oh, poor, poor, climate alarmists, looks like Obama has abandoned you, too

The Obama administration has urged the Supreme Court to toss out an appeals court decision that would allow lawsuits against major emitters for their contributions to global warming, stunning environmentalists who see the case as a powerful prod on climate change.

In the case, AEP v. Connecticut, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a coalition of states, environmental groups and New York City. The decision, handed down last year, said they could proceed with a lawsuit that seeks to force several of the nation’s largest coal-fired utilities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Please don’t call them environmentalists. They aren’t. But, the little alarmists should look on the bright side, since Obama wants to use the EPA to ram through his AGW agenda, something countries around the world are abandoning after 10 years of suffering under the Kyoto protocol, with nothing but poor economies to show for it

In a brief (pdf) filed yesterday on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority, acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal agreed with the defendants, saying that U.S. EPA’s newly finalized regulations on greenhouse gases have displaced that type of common-law claim.

Katyal urged the court to vacate the decision and remand the case to the 2nd Circuit for further proceedings, this time taking into account the administration’s push to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

No need to go into the details about CO2 being a natural gas needed for life on Earth, we all know the deal, though the climate creationists think it is freakin’ pollutant.

Matt Pawa, an attorney representing plaintiffs in the case, said he and his colleagues expected the White House to stay out of the matter. During a meeting with more than 30 administration lawyers at the solicitor general’s office on June 24, it seemed they had “a lot of friends in the room,” he said.

“We feel stabbed in the back,” Pawa said. “This was really a dastardly move by an administration that said it was a friend of the environment. With friends like this, who needs enemies?”

Top attorneys at environmental advocacy groups are buzzing about the brief, sources say. Some feel betrayed by a White House that has generally been more amenable to environmental regulation than its predecessor.

“This reads as if it were cut and pasted from the Bush administration’s briefing in Massachusetts,” said David Bookbinder, who served as the Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel until his resignation in May.

What, you expected Obama to help you out? Good luck with that, Obama is in it for Obama. You envirowackos are simply plastic figures in ObamaWorld.

0
  • http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

    No, these nutjobs are definitely environmentalists. The word for a person who can come to a logical conclusion on the balance between man and nature is called a “conservationist”, like myself. I know many other conservationists, and I don't think I've met a single one that believes in the climate change/global warming/Al Gore's personal religion lie. A conservationists is willing to come to an agreeable solution. An environmentalist thinks humans should die, and yet never kill themselves, but propose things like killing off over half of humanity.

  • baoxian

    Hey, Obama owns GM now. Can't have them and the other big corporations getting sued and possibly going out of business. Can't bail them out after a global warming lawsuit, imagine how that would look in the press.

    Of course, here in the world of sanity and reason, we know any such lawsuit would be 100% arbitrary since it's impossible to prove the extent of the connection between CO2 and climate, much less weather patterns that could be considered cause for damages. You may as well sue the proverbial butterfly for flapping its wings.

  • UFKA_Smithwick

    Something I've started to wonder about lately: MMGW is essentially a cult. It has all the trappings (strict dogma, charismatic leaders prospering off their ignorant sheep, rejection of science for dogma, etc etc) and no scientific basis.

    So would it be possible to raise this as a first amendment issue? Ie making no laws recognizing the establishment of any religion? Essentially funding for global warming research at this point represents forced national tithing to the Church of Gaia.

    I don't think such a lawsuit would win given the politics of it. But I do think it would be a worthwhile effort and draw ever more attention to the farce that is man made global warming.

    • http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

      :D

    • http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

      You actually potentially have a case here. I can't remember where I read it, but there actually was a case where a person was protected from being fired based on freedom of religion for his global warming beliefs.

      That alone would cause massive damage if used right. They would either be forced to overturn the first ruling and no longer protect people who believe in climate change (meaning that we could prevent them from ever getting jobs), or be forced to overturn the EPA regulations. They would have to pick one or the other, and both would cause their side completely irreparable damage.

      • UFKA_Smithwick

        I thought that case was in Britain.

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

    Maybe I'm odd man out, but I don't see Katyal's recommendation as positive at all for those who oppose CO2 regulation.

    The way I'm interpreting it, he's telling the courts that it's the opinion of the government that the cases shouldn't be decided under the standards stemming from older common-law tort claims now that the EPA has issued its ruling about CO2. What he's saying is that the punitive actions these suits contemplate should rather be handled under the EPA's spiffy new CO2 regulations, which are pretty darn strict and punitive in and of themselves.

    Another less obvious message he's communicating is that any money which is determined to be owed by the power companies as a result of their activities would be paid to the EPA, not to consumers. In that regard, he's out fishing for revenues for the federal government. Clever.

    For the life of me, I don't know what the environmentalists are whinging about. If anything, this is naught but a delay for their cause, and having their causes decided under the aegis of the EPA ruling gives them access to far better legal remedy than proceeding under the common-law tort claims would, except of course, that Uncle Shemuel would be the beneficiary, not whomever on whose behalf the environmentalists were suing.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

    There's no way that Obama wants the evidence, or lack thereof, of global warming in open court. He's trying to kill this in order to save it.

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info