Reducing CO2 Hurts the Planet and Humanity: Time to Reconsider Massachusetts v. EPA

“This August marks the 15th anniversary of  Massachusetts v. EPA. We believe it is time for the Supreme Court to reconsider their ruling given the vast amount of science now available on CO2 and its impact on climate change.” — Dr. Richard M. Swier

In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA,

[T]he Supreme Court found that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. In section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, Congress stated that EPA is to issue standards applicable to the emission of

“air pollutants” from new motor vehicles, which in EPA’s “judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare . . . .”

The Massachusetts v. EPA ruling has caused incalculable harm to our planet in general and specifically to mankind.

According to the Department of Justice brief on Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

In 1999, private organizations filed a petition requesting that EPA issue rules to begin regulating four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, emitted from new motor vehicles. After taking extensive public comment, EPA denied the petition, stating that:

  1. it did not have authority under the Clean Air Act to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change because Congress would have explicitly directed EPA to do so if Congress so intended. As a result, greenhouse gases could not be considered “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act.
  2. even if it did have authority, it would be unwise to set greenhouse gas emission standards at this time because:
  • there was uncertainty regarding the link between greenhouse gases and global warming;
  • mandatory regulation was a piecemeal approach that would interfere with the President’s more comprehensive approach; and
  • it might hamper the President’s ability to persuade developing countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

But this did not stop the Supreme Court under Justice John Paul Stevens which ruled,

The Court then held that under the language of the Clean Air Act, [the] EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as ‘air pollutants’.

From this moment on CO2 became the symbol of climate change fanatics to mandate reductions and regulations infinitum. The power shifted from the people to the EPA and its puppet masters.

CO2 and the Climate

Since this ruling the science has proven green house gasses specifically CO2 has little or no impact on the climate.

On February 26th, 2021 a revised and expanded third edition of scientific look at climate change titled Hot Talk, Cold Science by the distinguished astrophysicist Dr. S. Fred Singer, with the assistance of renowned climate scientists David R. Legates and Anthony R. Lupo, wrote,

As alarmists clamor to impose draconian government restrictions on entire populations in order to combat “climate change,” this book reveals some startling, stubborn contradictory facts, including:

  • CO2 has not caused temperatures or sea levels to rise beyond historical rates.
  • Severe storms have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1970—neither have heat waves nor droughts.
  • Global change is not harming coral reefs.
  • Any increases in CO2 concentrations across huge time spans (there have been a few) haven’t preceded rising global temperatures; they’ve followed them by about six to eight hundred years—just the opposite of alarmist claims.
  • Alarmist climate scientists have hidden their raw temperature data and deleted emails—then undermined the peer-review system to squelch debate.

In sum, despite all the hot talk—and outright duplicity—there is no “climate crisis” resulting from human activities and no such threat on the horizon.

In the below video we learn that 5 million years of climate data shows the Sun is the driving factor not CO2.


The Bottom Line

This case must be overturned because both parties were really on the same side. Both wanted CO2 regulated.

There are three important findings on what impacts the earth’s climate:

  1. Earths warming and cooling periods over millions of years has been due to activity on the sun.
  2. H2O (water vapor) is driving green house gas models, not CO2. It is H2O that keeps earth at a livable temperature for mankind.
  3. CO2 has little to do with global warming. CO2 actually helps keep the planet green.

Climate change is a myth used for political purposes to punish each and every human being on this planet. The idea that mankind can in anyway control the weather, let alone the climate is preposterous. Yet, this is the mantra of the global elite, from the United Nations, to the World Health Organization, to the Biden administration.

Without a doubt the SCOTUS ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA has done no good and created great harm.

It is time to abort Massachusetts v. EPA in order to save mankind.

As John F. Kennedy said,

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

It is past time to deal with the discomfort of thought that mankind can do nothing to impact the climate, nothing at all!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


Watts Up With That? The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change 

MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA: The Inconvenient Truth About Precedent—Virginia Law Review

Massachusetts v EPA

How and why the Supreme Court made climate-change history—The Harvard Gazette

2 replies

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Time to Reconsider Mass. v. EPA: Reducing CO2 Hurts the Planet and Humanity […]

  2. […] Time to Reconsider Mass. v. EPA: Reducing CO2 Hurts the Planet and Humanity […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *