There is absolutely *zero* reason to rule that the EPA, which has existed since the 70's has no authority to regulate the environment. None.
I'm attributing the worst to these people, because we know who they are. They want the government to have no ability to at all to put any restrictions on capital at all costs. They're simply doing it now because they have the raw power to do so.
If the authorization of the EPA was to "regulate the environment" then there is nothing they couldn't do.
The EPA was largely create to regulate pollutants based on laws written in the 1950s and 60s. It's not at all clear that the original lawmakers would consider carbon a pollutant -- it's something you and I are exhaling right at this moment.
So saying that the EPA needs authorization to regulate emissions that can cause climate change seems reasonable to me.
I've commented elsewhere on the reasons why the Supreme Court might rule the way they did. If you're sincerely curious, feel free to look at my other comments.
Here, I'll just observe that you're doing it again: you're projecting the worst possible motive on someone else's decision without giving due consideration to why else they might believe differently than you.
I'm attributing the worst to these people, because we know who they are. They want the government to have no ability to at all to put any restrictions on capital at all costs. They're simply doing it now because they have the raw power to do so.