Supreme Court can restore sanity and stop the left’s radical climate agenda

When the U.S.

Supreme Court opens its new term on Oct.

5, the justices will face the critical question of whether Congress or Boulder, Colo., controls American energy policy.

Cities such as Boulder, Honolulu and Baltimore have pursued frivolous lawsuits against energy companies on the claim that big oil concealed the effects of their products on climate change.

While states generally set policy over public health and safety, constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent should make the answer clear.

Energy forms a central part of the national economy and makes a foundational contribution to American national security.

The Constitution vests authority over interstate commerce and national security in the federal government, not the states.

But until the court resolves this matter once and for all in Suncor v.

Boulder, dozens of states and municipalities, backed by climate activists, will keep pushing legal theories in state court intended to impose ruinous liability on energy companies for lawful carbon emissions.

Without the court’s intervention, climate litigants would sue American energy into financial oblivion, inflict enormous costs on the American economy and render the nation more vulnerable to coercion by nations such as Russia and Iran.

THESE 11 UPCOMING SUPREME COURT DECISIONS COULD MAKE OR BREAK TRUMP'S SECOND TERM AGENDA The decisions about how to regulate carbon emissions and respond to global climate belong to the federal government, not the states or localities.

Greenhouse gases do not remain within state or even national borders.

Once emitted, they enter the global atmosphere.

Emissions from a gas station in Boulder are functionally indistinguishable from emissions from a coal plant in another state or a factory overseas.