Supreme Court dismisses GOP states’ challenge to Biden’s carbon cost estimation rule.
The U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Challenging Biden’s Social Cost of Carbon
The U.S. Supreme Court has made a significant decision by declining to hear a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states against the Biden administration’s attempt to assign a social cost to carbon. This social cost is a fundamental element that affects all life on Earth.
No explanation was given, and the Court simply listed Missouri v. Biden as one of the denied petitions for writ of certiorari. This follows the Court’s previous refusal to hear a similar challenge earlier this year.
Last year, the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld a federal district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit. The court ruled that the states lacked standing to challenge the estimates but indicated they could sue if they could identify a concrete injury.
Related Stories
- IPCC Global Warming Reports Underestimated Role of Sun in Warming: Study - 10/7/2023
- Climate Change Narrative Driven by Agenda of Political Control: Myron Ebell – 6/26/2019
In addition to Missouri, 10 other states requested the Supreme Court to take up the issue: Tennessee, Utah, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Montana.
“We will continue to combat government overreach at every turn,” said Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office.
After assuming office in 2021, President Joe Biden established the “Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases” through an executive order. This group includes leadership from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council of Economic Advisors.
Former President Barack Obama initially set the social cost at $43 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions. Former President Donald Trump lowered it to $3-$5, and President Biden increased it to $51.
“An accurate social cost is essential for agencies to determine the social benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when conducting cost-benefit analyses,” the executive order stated.
The OMB defended the estimates when the Supreme Court rejected a previous challenge from Louisiana.
“Properly accounting for the harms caused by greenhouse gas emissions is critical to our work to reduce energy costs and protect Americans from the growing impacts of climate change,” said the agency.
The red states in Missouri v. Biden and Louisiana’s case argued that the costs would have widespread impacts on every sector of the American economy.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar responded to the states’ petition, cautioning that agencies are not required to adopt the cost estimate. She also supported the eighth circuit’s criticism of the states’ claim to standing in the case.
“It is conjecture whether a particular federal agency will ultimately use the interim estimates as a basis for a particular rule that results in a cognizable injury to petitioners,” she said. “The agency could choose not to regulate at all. If it decides to regulate, it could conclude that the applicable statute requires it to regulate without regard to effects on greenhouse gases.”
It is likely that future regulations utilizing the social cost estimate will lead to additional lawsuits.
“Litigation on the social cost of carbon is likely to move to challenging the regulations issued which are justified by the social cost of carbon values,” said David Watkins, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
What are some of the arguments made by Republican-led states challenging the Biden administration’s assignment of a social cost to carbon?
Eaders from various federal agencies and is tasked with developing a framework to calculate the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases.
The social cost of carbon refers to the economic cost associated with the release of one metric ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is meant to capture the long-term damages caused by climate change, including impacts on public health, infrastructure, agriculture, and ecosystems. By assigning a monetary value to these damages, policymakers can factor them into cost-benefit analyses when evaluating proposed regulations or projects that contribute to carbon emissions.
However, the Republican-led states challenging the Biden administration argue that assigning a social cost to carbon is an overreach of federal power and an infringement on states’ rights. They believe that such decisions should be made by Congress, not through executive action.
The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the lawsuit does not indicate a judgment on the merits of the case but signals that the Court will not intervene at this time. It is worth noting that the Court has previously shown reluctance to step into disputes involving scientific and technical issues.
This decision maintains the Biden administration’s ability to progress in its efforts to address climate change and establish policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions. It provides a significant boost to the administration’s goal of transitioning the country to a clean energy economy.
The rejection of the lawsuit does not close the door for future challenges, as the Court’s decision focuses on the issue of standing rather than the substance of the case. The states that brought the lawsuit can still pursue legal action if they can demonstrate concrete harm resulting from the administration’s social cost of carbon calculation.
Climate change is a pressing global issue that demands swift and decisive action. The social cost of carbon serves as an essential tool in the fight against climate change by incorporating its economic impacts into decision-making processes. With the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, the Biden administration can continue its efforts to address climate change and establish policies that prioritize the well-being of both present and future generations.
In the face of mounting evidence and the urgent need to mitigate the impacts of climate change, it is crucial for policymakers, regardless of their political affiliations, to work together in finding effective solutions. The rejection of the lawsuit challenging the social cost of carbon calculation is a step forward in acknowledging the scientific consensus on climate change and taking the necessary actions to safeguard our planet.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
