Disappointment in ARB Case
05/15/17 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail |
Climate
Change
After three years of
hard work, TRANSDEF’s challenge
to the California
Air Resources Board’s adoption of its 2014 Scoping
Plan was rejected today by the Court.
Disappointingly, the decision was based purely on
the technical, procedural objections brought by
ARB. ARB never defended its decision to include a
GHG-increasing measure in a plan intended to
reduce GHGs.
In oral argument, TRANSDEF’s attorney, Stuart Flashman, proposed a new way to look at CEQA GHG impacts--one that we have not heard being used before: Because of the global climate change tipping point being close to the present, he distinguished near-term GHG emissions as being far more significant an impact than emissions occurring after the tipping point has been passed. While a very strong argument, the Court ruled that TRANSDEF’s comments had not made that point, so that we were barred from litigating it. We suggest this issue be raised in future cases.
In oral argument, TRANSDEF’s attorney, Stuart Flashman, proposed a new way to look at CEQA GHG impacts--one that we have not heard being used before: Because of the global climate change tipping point being close to the present, he distinguished near-term GHG emissions as being far more significant an impact than emissions occurring after the tipping point has been passed. While a very strong argument, the Court ruled that TRANSDEF’s comments had not made that point, so that we were barred from litigating it. We suggest this issue be raised in future cases.