Last summer, Texas, Big Oil interests, the automotive industry and other assorted industrial polluters were dealt an unambiguous defeat in a legal challenge to dismantle greenhouse gas regulations. The Feds, a federal appeals court panel ruled, were "unambiguously correct" for setting limits on carbon dioxide and other pollutants -- an affirmation that greenhouse gases and the climate change to which they contribute are threats to human health.
Abbott and the other challengers claimed the data the court relied on might have been "manipulated" somehow, but the full appeals court declined to rehear the case in December. The win signaled a significant victory for climate activists (and future, Earth-dwelling generations, you might say).
Greg Abbott, the litigious Texas Attorney General who has turned the office into an outsize expression of his political ambition, is now appealing to the highest court in the land.
"Since Day One of the Obama Administration, the EPA has issued a barrage of overreaching and illegal regulations," he said in a news release. "In doing so, the EPA has not only ignored the devastating economic impacts of their regulations, but also ignored the laws of our land."
His petition to the U.S. Supreme Court argues, among other things, that the regulatory framework EPA uses to limit greenhouse gas emissions is "preposterous," absurdly strict, and, of course, "overreaching."
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to the Observer's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling Dallas's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
Given the fact that the Supremes themselves ruled that the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases during the Bush years, we'll see how that argument works out for Abbott.