The social cost of carbon in U.S.... "Louisiana Asks SCOTUS To Block Biden Administration From Calculating 'Social Cost' Of Carbon Emissions" - ZERO HEDGE

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

EXCERPT - The social cost of carbon, a measurement in dollars of the damages supposedly caused by releasing a metric ton of greenhouse gases, is used by policymakers to provide cost-benefit analyses and to write regulations. Placing a monetary value on the effect of the gases gives federal regulators ammunition to justify tougher environmental regulations

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/louisiana-asks-scotus-block-biden-administration-calculating-social-cost-carbon-emissions

Louisiana Asks SCOTUS To Block Biden Administration From Calculating 'Social Cost' Of Carbon Emissions

by Tyler Durden

Tuesday, Apr 19, 2022 - 07:05 PM

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry is vowing to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the Biden administration from recalculating and using the “social cost” of carbon emissions, a metric used in climate regulation that critics say needlessly drives up operating costs for businesses and prices for consumers.

Critics have long said that the classification of carbon dioxide, the gas humans expel from their lungs when breathing, as a pollutant makes no sense. Carbon dioxide is essential to life on the planet and is used in the process of photosynthesis, which spurs plant growth. But environmentalists claim that human-created carbon dioxide contributes to climate change.

The social cost of carbon, a measurement in dollars of the damages supposedly caused by releasing a metric ton of greenhouse gases, is used by policymakers to provide cost-benefit analyses and to write regulations. Placing a monetary value on the effect of the gases gives federal regulators ammunition to justify tougher environmental regulations.

On Inauguration Day, President Joe Biden signed an executive order that resurrected an interagency working group on the social cost of carbon and temporarily set the cost at $51 per metric ton, the level used before President Donald Trump took office in 2017. During his presidency, Trump had reduced the social cost figure to as low as $1 per metric ton. Biden’s working group was studying the social cost with a view to establishing a new, presumably higher rate.

In February, U.S. District Judge James D. Cain Jr. of the Western District of Louisiana, agreed with Louisiana and nine other states, issuing an order blocking the use of the interim metric. The states told Cain, who was appointed by Trump, that the metric was arbitrary and would boost the cost of producing energy and hike regulatory costs for states.

At the time, Max Sarinsky, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School, said Cain’s injunction might not survive.

“This injunction is extraordinarily broad,” Sarinsky told Axios. “I think it will receive very, very close scrutiny on appeal.”

In mid-March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit stayed Cain’s injunction at the request of the Biden administration in an emergency application. The appeals court held that Louisiana and the other states challenging the metric had raised “merely hypothetical” claims of harm and that they probably didn’t have legal standing to take action in court.

Greenwire reported that days later, the states asked the 5th Circuit to hear the case, arguing that allowing the use of the social cost metric “lets one of the most consequential regulations in history remain in effect … despite the irreparable harm it’s causing the states.” The appeals court denied the rehearing.

“We are disappointed in the 5th Circuit’s decision, and we will appeal to the Supreme Court,” Landry’s office told E&E News, a trade publication. “Attorney General Landry will continue fighting the Biden administration’s attempts to inject the government into the everyday lives of Americans.”

Landry’s comments come as the Supreme Court is considering West Virginia v. EPA, which the court heard on Feb. 28.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey previously told The Epoch Times that he hopes the Supreme Court will use the case to rein in the far-reaching powers of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to shut down carbon dioxide-generating industries without regard to the economic well-being of those affected.

The problem is that the EPA is trying to transform itself from “an environmental regulator into a central energy planning authority,” according to Morrisey, a Republican.

West Virginia is a major producer of coal, natural gas, and crude oil. West Virginia and 18 other states are challenging the authority that the Clean Air Act provides to the EPA. The challengers hope the high court will resolve whether the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to delegate regulatory authority to the EPA to limit so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

The challenge comes years after the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) that the agency can regulate greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide as “air pollutants” under the act. In the decision, the court called climate change “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

13 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

Critics have long said that the classification of carbon dioxide, the gas humans expel from their lungs when breathing, as a pollutant makes no sense. Carbon dioxide is essential to life on the planet and is used in the process of photosynthesis, which spurs plant growth. But environmentalists claim that human-created carbon dioxide contributes to climate change.

Leaving aside totally the question of whether additional CO2 from human activity has any affect on climate change, making an estimate of the damage a tone of carbon emitted may cause is purely a matter of assumptions about what may happen decades in the future, when the climate models give such a broad range of outcomes. Even then economists have to discount the value of that damage back to the present day, and the discount rate (like a long term rate of return on an investment) alone has been the subject of huge arguments. Another, major assumption is that other countries will also curtail carbon emissions, just because a handful of developed countries have tried to, otherwise there's no benefit at all. Even if that happens and we adopt a low discount rate for the calculations, we'd have to compare the cost of curtailing carbon now as opposed to stuff like building barriers and improving housing stock to withstand storms and floods and the like, and adaptation to changes in food production areas. In essence the economic arguments just don't work unless, of course, we are facing planet-wide catastrophe in 5-10 years, and even then you still face the problem that major emitters (China, India) aren't doing much at all about emissions. The US courts should just dump the economic arguments.    

[nsdp + 449]

19 minutes ago, markslawson said:

 

This was settled by Chief Justice Warren Burger 50 years ago. You count health risk increases and their social costs for purposes of determining environmental costs. Case was the Alaska Pipeline case.   Congress went back and passed the Alyeska Pipeline Act to grant the right of way in spite of NEPA and water crossings under section 10 of the rivers and Harbors Act to build the line.   No other pipeline has ever received like treatment.   Based on the original Alaska Pipeline decision, Louisiana's arguments are frivolous.  I note none of the Louisiana lawyers  were out of their diapers yet; so I doubt they even know  this has been to the Supreme Court  and it has heard this before.   If they want to change it they have to get Congress to rewrite  NEPA and the President to sign.

[markslawson + 1,042]

22 hours ago, nsdp said:

This was settled by Chief Justice Warren Burger 50 years ago. You count health risk increases and their social costs for purposes of determining environmental costs.

nsdp - The approach taken by the American courts to this issue and their method of determining social cost is badly flawed as we can all agree. The fact that they regard it as settled is neither here nor there - although that may have some legal weight, there are precedents for discarding bad case law. However, I was talking about the real world approaches to determining social costs, and the immense trouble economists have had in making an economic case for any reduction in emissions, short of a full scale catastrophe. This problem is even more marked in the absence of any effective international emission control.    

[nsdp + 449]

Mark, I would suggest  that you start your argument with science or a change in legislation. For Science I would suggest that you start with this paper from. Mining Congress Journal August 1965 Air Pollution and the Coal Industry.https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6554117-Mining-Congress-Journal-August-1965-Air.html#/p6/a536518The automotive industryand climate changeFramework and dynamics of the CO2 (r)evolution https://www.pwc.com/th/en/automotive/assets/co2.pdf Now find  coal and automotive  industry  evidence that is statically sound that contradicts the current standards.  Courts DO NOT make law; that is  contrary to your uneducated opinion above.  Courts weigh the evidence presented to them and rule who has the better evidence.  Courts cannot rewrite  or change laws or regulations.  If you don't like what is there then you go to Congress and have them change the law.   My degree is math science and space science. So I will review it and see if any one has done better work since 1965.   You have to prove that the existing regulations are not consistent with current science.

Provide the scientific research that shows that the foundation science is wrong (QAnon doesn't count)  or quit viewing the world through your navel and posting total BS. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

22 hours ago, nsdp said:

Mark, I would suggest  that you start your argument with science or a change in legislation. For Science I would suggest that you start with this paper from. Mining Congress Journal August 1965 Air Pollution and the Coal Industry.https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6554117-Mining-Congress-Journal-August-1965-

nsdp - sorry but your response doesn't make sense, or perhaps you're arguing about something else. My point was quite clear.. economists have a lot of trouble making an ECONOMIC case for cutting emissions. I wasn't discussing the science at all and American legislation is irrelevant. But never mind. I suspect I'm talking to a brick wall. I'll leave you to your own world. Have fun in it.   

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 4/21/2022 at 10:11 PM, nsdp said:

Mark, I would suggest  that you start your argument with science or a change in legislation. For Science I would suggest that you start with this paper from. Mining Congress Journal August 1965 Air Pollution and the Coal Industry.https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6554117-Mining-Congress-Journal-August-1965-Air.html#/p6/a536518The automotive industryand climate changeFramework and dynamics of the CO2 (r)evolutionhttps://www.pwc.com/th/en/automotive/assets/co2.pdf Now find  coal and automotive  industry  evidence that is statically sound that contradicts the current standards.  Courts DO NOT make law; that is  contrary to your uneducated opinion above.  Courts weigh the evidence presented to them and rule who has the better evidence.  Courts cannot rewrite  or change laws or regulations.  If you don't like what is there then you go to Congress and have them change the law.   My degree is math science and space science. So I will review it and see if any one has done better work since 1965.   You have to prove that the existing regulations are not consistent with current science.

Provide the scientific research that shows that the foundation science is wrong (QAnon doesn't count)  or quit viewing the world through your navel and posting total BS. 

1965? Coal technology has been transformed since then, that is ancient stuff. You need to get up to date on climate science, the CO2 models are not strong enough to explain anything in climate change. 

Here is some recent research by reputable scientists showing the relationship between solar cycles and climate change. There is too much recent study showing the same thing. Get your head out of the science of 1965 and see what is happening today. 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020EA001223

Here is the summary,

"In the following analysis, we will explore if these termination events could provide a starting point in establishing a robust Sun-Troposphere connection on decadal timescales, by creating or demonstrating a new fiducial time for solar activity. Correlation does not imply causation, but such a strong correspondence requires explanation, one that is beyond the current paradigm of atmospheric modeling."

I like that last little comment, "one that is beyond the current paradigm of atmospheric modeling." (Ha, ha.) In other words, when the current paradigms do not explain the data, it is time to look for another explanation.

 Here are the affiliations of the three scientists on this research paper above. They sound good to me. 

Goddard Planetary Heliophysics Institute, University of Maryland-Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 672, Greenbelt, MD, USA

National Center for Atmospheric Research, High Altitude Observatory, Boulder, CO, USA

 

National Center for Atmospheric Research, High Altitude Observatory, Boulder, CO, USA

Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

[notsonice + 1,068]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

nsdp - sorry but your response doesn't make sense, or perhaps you're arguing about something else. My point was quite clear.. economists have a lot of trouble making an ECONOMIC case for cutting emissions. I wasn't discussing the science at all and American legislation is irrelevant. But never mind. I suspect I'm talking to a brick wall. I'll leave you to your own world. Have fun in it.   

The appeals court denied the rehearing.... You always can take your arguments to the Appeals court....

Your statement..........The approach taken by the American courts to this issue and their method of determining social cost is badly flawed...

Have you been successful in the Appeals court with calling them badly flawed???????

 

I bet they find your arguments frivolous.....Have fun with it.  

Edited April 23, 2022 by notsonice

[markslawson + 1,042]

15 hours ago, notsonice said:

The appeals court denied the rehearing.... You always can take your arguments to the Appeals court....

Your statement..........The approach taken by the American courts to this issue and their method of determining social cost is badly flawed...

Notosnice - Like nsdp you totally misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not making a legal argument for an appeals court. I'm pointing out that the court's approach was flawed which it is. What the appeals court might make of that is irrelevant, although it would be nice if they saw sense. The ECONOMIC case for reducing emissions collapsed over a decade ago for a host of reasons, and even assuming that all countries actually reduced emissions which isn't going to happen. There were huge arguments over the discount rate for money and over assuming what damage might be caused, given the huge range of forecast outcomes, as opposed to the cost of adaptation. There is no economic case for reducing emissions. There may be a moral case but that is a choice the community has to make, not you or I. My suggestion is that rather than try to point to what the courts might have said, you'd be better off dealing with that basic fact, 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

22 hours ago, notsonice said:

The appeals court denied the rehearing.... You always can take your arguments to the Appeals court....

Your statement..........The approach taken by the American courts to this issue and their method of determining social cost is badly flawed...

Have you been successful in the Appeals court with calling them badly flawed???????

 

I bet they find your arguments frivolous.....Have fun with it.  

The Courts will eventually get their act together, the new science will change that.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

9 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The Courts will eventually get their act together, the new science will change that.

Imagine a bunch of gov't beaurcrats weighing in on such a complex topic. It is all about to change.

 

Supreme Court to hear a case that could limit the EPA's power to fight climate change

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1082934438/supreme-court-to-hear-a-case-that-could-limit-the-epas-power-to-fight-climate-ch

[TailingsPond + 468]

So they know there is a problem and now want to legislate "See no EVIL."

It's not a problem if we don't look anti-logic. 

Almost like "there would be less covid if we did fewer tests."   -Trump, keep your eyes closed (aka hide the truth).

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 4/24/2022 at 3:35 PM, TailingsPond said:

So they know there is a problem and now want to legislate "See no EVIL."

It's not a problem if we don't look anti-logic. 

Almost like "there would be less covid if we did fewer tests."   -Trump, keep your eyes closed (aka hide the truth).

 

 

 

No, the issue is, can Congress and regulatory authorities ignore changes in science which appear to undermine the basis for previous actions. This is serious, because science changes on a regular basis, and it takes time for government action to respond to those new research results.

In fact, it is so awkward and costly to do an about-face on a major issue such as the causes of climate change, that it is easier to continue in a straight line direction and ignore the science. Pretend that it doesn't exist. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

On 4/24/2022 at 12:35 PM, TailingsPond said:

So they know there is a problem and now want to legislate "See no EVIL."

It's not a problem if we don't look anti-logic. 

Almost like "there would be less covid if we did fewer tests."   -Trump, keep your eyes closed (aka hide the truth).

 

 

 

Speaking to such matters, I might suggest a preemptive strategy in order to secure your...peace of mind?

How to Delete Your Twitter Account

Removing yourself from Twitter isn't as easy as you think -- there's more to it than hitting a delete button.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/how-to-delete-your-twitter-account/