I remember when I first heard that the Supreme Court was going to hear the case of Massachusetts vs. the EPA. I remember thinking to myself, “Dang it. There is no way that this court is going to give the EPA a fair hearing.”

You see, in my mind, the EPA is a force for good that sees one of its primary functions as …. well… protecting the environment. In my mind, the EPA would proactively look for things that are harming the environment an look to right those wrongs.

Hence, as soon as I heard that the EPA was involved in this case, I immediately thought that they must be who I should be cheering for.

But then as I heard more about the case, I realized that we had entered Bizarro World — a world in which everything is the opposite of normal.

So, in Bizarro World, states have to sue the EPA to ummm … well.. protect the environment.

In order to understand where this case came from, you need to go back to the Clean Air Act, which says that:

“The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

Now, let’s hypothetically say that there was some emission from motor vehicles, like carbon dioxide, that was anticipated to endanger public welfare, might one reasonably conclude that this fell under the purview of the EPA to regulate?

In normal world, you would say yes.

But, in Bizarro World, the EPA said that they don’t have the statutory authority from Congress to regulate such an emission.

First, the EPA claimed that carbon dioxide isn’t an “air pollutant” and, thus, isn’t covered under the Clean Air Act. In Bizarro World, they might be right. But, in “normal world,” one simply needs to look at the following definition of an “air pollutant”:

“any air pollution agent . . . , including any physical,chemical, . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air . . . ”

You might think that carbon dioxide fits this definition to a “T”. But, in Bizarro World, the EPA claimed that carbon dioxide doesn’t meet this definition because… well, I have no idea how they justified such a crazy argument.

Then, the EPA contended that even if carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and even if it is going to linked to global warming, that you could not reasonably claim that lil’ ol’ global warming meets the criteria of endangering “public health or welfare.”

In Bizzaro World, they might have had us on the ropes. But, in “normal world”, you simply need to notice that wily authors of the Clean Air Act included a definition of “welfare” that includes “effects on . . . weather . . . and climate.”

Those jerks! Being all specific like that. Ruins any attempts to play games with what they meant.

Confronted with these pesky facts showing that the Clean Air Act clearly applies to carbon dioxide, the EPA did a little rope-a-dope and claimed that “climate change was so important that unless Congress spoke with exacting specificity, it could not have meant the agency to address it.”

In a move meant to keep their opponents off balance, they went from claiming that global warming was not likely to endanger the public welfare to now claiming that the issue is so serious, that it could not possibly fall under the Clean Air Act.

The irony in this claim is that EPA was basically saying that its mission is to only tackle those issues that are unimportant; important issues cannot possibly be their purview because they would be dealt with directly by Congress.

In a last gasp of desperation, the EPA decided to use the “ends don’t justify the means” strategy and claimed that “if carbon dioxide were an air pollutant, the only feasible method of reducing tailpipe emissions would be to improve fuel economy.”

Nooo… Not that! Not improved fuel economy. Anything but that! Aren’t improved fuel economy standards against the Geneva Conventions?

You see, even if the EPA wanted to regulate carbon dioxide from automobiles, it couldn’t since “Congress has already created detailed mandatory fuel economy standards subject to Department of Transportation (DOT) administration.” Because of this, the EPA concluded that “EPA regulation would either conflict with those standards or be superfluous.”

In Bizarro World, the EPA might be off the hook. But in normal world, the Supreme Court saw through that silly tactic saying, just because “DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities. … There is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.”

In the end, the Supreme Court threw out the Bizarro World arguments used by the EPA and concluded, “In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.”

Unfortunately, for the EPA, this means that they might actually have to DO THEIR JOB, even if they don’t want to.

To be clear, this ruling does not mean that the EPA has to regulate carbon dioxide from vehicles.

Instead, what it means is that the EPA has to go back and do its homework and make an explicit determination as to whether greenhouse gases cause global warming or not. If they conclude that this is the case, then the EPA will be bound to action by the Clean Air Act.

Specifically, the Court said, “EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.”

Epilogue

I couldn’t complete this post without reminding people of one of the most outrageous exchanges that took place during the hearing in front of the Supreme Court. The following text comes from a Washington Post article:

Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General James R. Milkey told the court that 200 miles of the state’s coastline are threatened by rising seas, a result of global warming.

‘The harm does not suddenly spring up in the year 2100; it plays out continuously over time,’ Milkey said in answer to Scalia’s question. ‘Once these gases are emitted . . . they stay a long time — the laws of physics take over.’

Milkey faced skeptical questioning from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the court’s newest members, but the most sustained — and entertaining — interrogation came from Scalia.

At one point, he acknowledged the role of carbon dioxide as a pollutant in the air but wondered about it being a pollutant in the ’stratosphere.’

‘Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It’s the troposphere,’ Milkey said.

‘Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I’m not a scientist,’ Scalia said to laughter. ‘That’s why I don’t want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.’

Ha ha ha! You funny guy Scalia. If only Earl Warren could have had your sense of humor. Maybe he would have said, “That’s why I don’t want to have to deal with segregation, to tell you the truth.”

Jerk.

It might shock you to learn that Scalia dissented on this case.

It does crack me up a little bit to think about Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas as Bizarro saying, “Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness!”