This weekly newsletter, focused on environmental issues, highlights relevant analysis done by the John Locke Foundation and other think tanks, as well as items in the news.
1. U.S. taxpayers bankroll IPCC
According to a report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the US government has, since 2001, financed nearly half the bill for running the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Over the last 10 years the United States government, using borrowed money that taxpayers will ultimately have to pay back, has forked over to the IPCC $31 million. The total bill for operating the IPCC over that time period was about $70 million. As reported by CNS News.com:
The GAO also found that this funding information "was not available in budget documents or on the websites of the relevant federal agencies, and the agencies are generally not required to report this information to Congress. … [T]he GAO found that the State Department provided $19 million for administrative and other expenses, while the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provided $12.1 million in technical support through the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), averaging an annual $3.1 million to the IPCC over 10 years.
More generally, the GAO report found a lack of transparency when it comes to federal funding of global warming projects. It stated that "Congress and the public cannot consistently track federal climate change funding or spending over time." But according to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, over the last 13 years, US taxpayers have been on the hook for $20 billion in climate change research — about $1.5 billion a year. As a means of comparison, the National Cancer Institute, in 2010, spent $281 million on lung cancer research.
2. EPA runs roughshod over individual rights (again)
Using the Clean Water Act and its provisions regarding the regulation of "navigable waterways" as an excuse, the EPA is once again attempting to trample on the rights of individual property owners. But this time they may be running into a real constraint on their seemingly unlimited powers — the U.S. Supreme Court. Here’s how the Washington Times describes the situation in Sackett vs EPA, a case heard by the Supreme Court on Monday.
You buy a vacant lot in a residential subdivision across the road from a small lake. The lot is zoned for residential building. It is surrounded by other homes and homes being built. You submit your plans and blueprints and receive a building permit.
You start grading the property to build a home.
The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps. of Engineers show up and accuse you of building on a "wetland". The EPA issues what is known as a "compliance order". You must stop all building. You must restore the land to its natural state. You must replace and plant trees. You must place a fence around the land and maintain the property in a pristine condition.
You have no right to a pre-enforcement challenge of the order. You must comply with the order or be sued by the EPA and face fines between 35-75 thousand dollars per day.
The issue before the Supreme Court is not about the denial of property rights but the denial of due process rights. The EPA is claiming that they can do what they are doing to this family administratively. In other words, the EPA claims to have the right to deprive the Sackett family their rights without due process. The Sacketts assert that is unconstitutional.
According to Investors Business Daily:
Unlike other regulations and enforcement orders, the EPA under clean air and water laws can issue an order without giving the recipient a chance to challenge it in court before the agency initiates a lawsuit for noncompliance.
And in coming before the Supreme Court,
The Sacketts asked the justices to determine if they can lodge a pre-enforcement challenge to an EPA order and, if not, whether their due process rights are being violated.
According to this article in Business Week, it appears that the justices are sympathetic to the Sacketts. Here are some quotes from the Business Week story:
"Don’t you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States?" Justice Samuel Alito asked at today’s hearing. He later suggested the EPA’s actions had been "outrageous."
Justice Antonin Scalia accused regulators of "high-handedness." …
Justice Elena Kagan called the government’s reasoning "very strange."
"Why would the presumption of reviewability not apply?" Kagan asked.
Justice Stephen Breyer, perhaps the court’s staunchest defender of the powers of administrative agencies, said the government "is fighting 75 years of practice" with its argument.
‘What Would You Do?’
Chief Justice John Robert joined Alito in openly empathizing with the landowners."What would you do, Mr. Stewart, if you received this compliance order?" Roberts said in a question directed at Malcolm Stewart, the government’s lawyer. "You don’t think your property has wetlands on it and you get this compliance order from the EPA. What would you do?"
Click here for the Environmental Update archive.
