Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency: Constructing “Certainty” as Rebuttal

Abstract

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency was the first Supreme Court opinion generated specifically as a response to the issue of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, alleging that Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) failure to regulate is leading to environmental harms for plaintiffs. This essay examines the majority opinion of Justice Stevens and his use of presumption and burden of proof, within a logic of problematic integration, to construct “certainty” as a rebuttal to and rejection of the “uncertainty” offered by EPA. I examine how this strategically constructed rebuttal to “uncertainty” functions as a declarative act of “certainty,” advancing a proposition whose scientific, legal, or political acceptance could function as a tipping point away from the claims of “uncertainty” used by opponents on this contentious issue. Because of the court's influence, the implications of their “certainty” extend beyond the case and into the broader discussion of climate change science and environmental communication.