« BREAKING: 9th Circuit Rules That Feds Must Account for Climate Change | Main | Judicial Baseball »



And... "a wide range of factors" that are going to rely more and more on speculation than science. Which is exactly where this whole idiocy is heading anyway. Vague claims about global warming are quickly becoming a universal club which the Left/enviro crowd can use to bludgeon and intimidate any industry that actually produces... you know, stuff! Service economy here we come!!


So the gest of the court's ruling is that a regulatory action must included in cost-benefit analysis the impending end of the earth? wow Now that would be a big thumbprint on the scales, I mean, how do you calculate extinction without using an infinity? Hats off to the 9th in their continued crusade against civilization as we know it.

Tim Dowling

Mike, Pashley -- Please read the opinion before commenting. The petitioners relied on, among other things, a study of the National Commission on Energy Policy concluding that GHG reductions have estimated benefits of $3-19 per ton of CO2. The opinion notes that the National Academy of Sciences reached a similar conclusion. This translates into about 15 cents per gallon of gasoline saved (or a range of 10-22 cents per gallon). NHTSA can, of course, reach a different conclusion regarding the exact monetary benefit to be gained so long as its reasons for doing so are not arbitrary and capricous. And NHTSA will continue to consider economic practicality (including employment and sales impact), technological feasibility, and other factors as required by federal law, as it has all along. Nothing in the opinion suggests that carbon reduction benefits should trump everything else. The court is simply directing NHTSA to discontinue its policy of completely ignoring those benefits because its reasons for doing so are arbitrary and capricious.

Pls get a grip.

Tim Dowling, CRC

The comments to this entry are closed.