EPA Opponents Present Their Arguments
The EPA proposal assumes that global warming is established fact and that the anticipated global damage is certain and must be reacted to accordingly. It also assumes that this shadow government agency full of unelected , tyrannical bureaucrats can make decrees that will harm citizens and businesses alike with no one to answer to but themselves. The litigants made a number of arguments this past Friday. The 192 page initial brief focuses on the position that the EPA has extended its powers well beyond the legal limits it is given by the Clean Air Act, which is designed to limit pollution rather than remake national infrastructure.
“EPA’s audacious assertion of authority in this Rule is more far-reaching than any previous effort by the agency,” the litigants wrote.
“If upheld, the rule would lead to a breathtaking expansion of the agency’s authority. The rule’s restructuring of nearly every state’s electric grid would exceed even the authority that Congress gave to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the federal agency responsible for electricity regulation,” they said.
“EPA’s newly-discovered authority threatens to enable the agency to mandate that any existing source’s owners in any industry reduce their source’s production, shutter the existing source entirely, and even subsidize their non-regulated competitors.”
The regulation, made final last year, is the main pillar of President Obama’s climate change agenda. It seeks a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, with each state assigned a specific goal.
The Obama administration must respond to the charges by March 28th with its own brief. Other parities will also provide their own briefs, and the court will then hear oral arguments starting June 2nd, after which it is anticipated that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court by whichever side the court holds against.
All of this takes place with the backdrop of questions about whether Climate Change is a legitimate concern, and if it is truly man-caused and reversible. Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary for the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change was perhaps overly frank in a recent news conference when she admitted that the true goal of the various Climate Change initiatives and proposed policies was to shift power to the U.N. and to diminish the role of capitalism in the world.
That position will not be presented to the court, but it is very much in the minds of most critics of Climate Change who see massive shifts of power and wealth going to the administration and the U.N., all of which underlies the urgency and demand for the public to surrender their way of life to address a disaster that may very well be nothing but a hoax.
Some years ago it was discovered that some of the main proponents of the disaster were falsifying data and creating a public relations campaign to shut down legitimate scientific debate over the issue. That effort is now intensifying, and agencies such as the EPA are implementing policies and grabbing power and control that are not theirs to take.
The question still remains whether common sense will prevail and if the people will be able to put the EPA and the Obama administration in their proper place before they destroy the economy in the name of a fake disaster.