Chamber Mulls Legal Challenge to EPA’s Emissions Rules

Photo by Kate Sheppard.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donohue indicated on Thursday that the organization is mulling a legal challenge to an Environmental Protection Agency finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and should therefore be subject to regulation.

“Are we going to sue the EPA on the endangerment finding?” Donohue said at a press conference following a speech on the State of American Business 2010. “Maybe.”

“There are a number of options and processes available both in the courts and in other parts of government,” he added. “We will not stand still and let the endangerment finding, as narrow as it was intended to be, stand, since it has declared now that CO2 is a pollutant.” 

Donohue maintained that the Chamber isn’t disputing the idea that carbon dioxide is a threat to human health (although in the past it has done just that). The Chamber just doesn’t think the EPA has the legal ability to restrict emissions (even though the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that it does). The EPA’s efforts to curb carbon pollution, he said, amounts to “a retirement program for, amongst other things, class action lawyers.” “We’re not arguing the science. This is a legal issue, which basically hands the whole thing over, everything companies are doing everywhere, to the trial lawyers, so we will take some constructive steps,” he said.  

The Chamber has never been shy about unleashing trial lawyers to thwart environmental legislation. Bill Kovacs, the chamber’s vice president for environment, regulatory and government affairs, infamously called for a “Scopes Monkey Trial” on climate change as an alternative to suing the agency. And last September the Chamber filed suit against the agency challenging California’s right to set higher automobile emissions standards than the federal limits.

Donohue said the Chamber is keeping a close watch on Senate and House efforts to block EPA restrictions on greenhouse gases. He insisted that the Chamber prefers that Congress pass a bill on climate change, rather than letting the EPA take the lead. But he also downplayed the idea that Congress will get around to passing a law anytime soon—and reaffirmed the Chamber’s opposition to the leading measures circulating on Capitol Hill.

The House climate bill, he said, would “tie economic activity in knots and eliminate jobs from one end of the country to another,” and does not have the votes to pass in the Senate. “Just about everybody in the Democratic side of the Senate is up there running away from having to deal with this in the same year, and before an election, at the same time as they are dealing with health care and capital markets regulation,” he said.

When asked what kind of climate legislation the Chamber of Commerce might support, Donohue gave few details. Instead he merely listed portions of the current bills that he doesn’t like, and said the organization would support a “reasonable price on carbon” and “rational regulatory certainty” rather than “stupid regulatory certainty.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate