The U.S. Supreme Court tossed a 5-0 shut-out against the environmentalists this year. Five environmental cases were decided, and the High Court ruled against the environmentalists in all five. Dominance by the deceptive ideology of environmentalism in our court system has ended. Perhaps the Senate will take this cue and next throw cold water on the manmade global warming hoax.

The first of these Supreme Court rulings, Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008), addressed the claim that mid-frequency active sonar used in Navy training causes serious harm to marine mammals. The District Court's injunction "required the Navy to shut down MFA sonar when a marine mammal was spotted within 2,200 yards of a vessel, and to power down sonar by 6 decibels during conditions known as 'surface ducting.'" The Supreme Court overturned the injunction 6-3, ruling that environmental concerns "are plainly outweighed by the Navy's need to conduct realistic training exercises."

In Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4730 (2009), the Army Corps of Engineers had authorized an Alaskan gold mine to pump waste (water and crushed rock) into a lake. Environmental groups sued, claming that this authorization was illegal, and that the mine also needed a permit from the EPA (which would have been more difficult to obtain). The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the environmentalists, but the Supreme Court reversed, deciding that the Corps of Engineers had full authority to issue the dumping permit.

The case of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1870 (2009), concerned the liability of a pesticide dealer for environmental contamination. A supplier had merely sold the products which later contaminated the site, but the Court of Appeals held that the supplier was jointly liable with the owner for clean-up costs. The Supreme Court reversed with a stunning 8-1 majority.

In Energy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1498 (2009), environmental groups challenged the systems used by electric companies to intake water as an aid in cooling, arguing that they were prone to destroy organisms living in the water. Closed cooling systems, which do not draw from rivers, are extremely expensive, and the EPA does not require their use because costs exceed the benefits. The Court of Appeals disallowed the EPA's eminently sensible cost-benefit analysis. The Supreme Court reversed by 6-3 and reinstated the EPA's cost-benefit approach, holding that use of an efficient cost-benefit analysis is authorized by the Clean Water Act.

In Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S. Ct. 1142 (U.S. 2009), the Supreme Court considered timber-salvage efforts that included the Burnt Ridge Project: "a salvage sale of timber on 238 acres of fire-damaged federal land." Environmental groups challenged the U.S. Forest Services' exemption of such projects from the "notice, comment, and appeal process used by the Forest Service for more significant land management decisions." The environmentalists lost again; the Supreme Court held that the environmentalists lacked standing to challenge the exemption.

In each case, the Supreme Court ruled against environmentalist groups on basic issues, such as pollution and animal protection. Several observers see a clear anti-environmentalism shift in the Court. Douglas Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, noted that "collectively the Court is chipping away at the very foundations of environmental law in this country." John Echeverria, director of the Georgetown University Law Center's Environmental Law and Policy Institute, agreed, admitting that "[t]he overall effect of the rulings has been to weaken environmental protections across the board." Even the New York Times bluntly conceded, "Environmental interests were trounced in the 2009 Supreme Court term."

Overcoming anti-business environmentalism will help create jobs and increase affordable energy. If the Alaska gold mine or water-cooled power plants had to go through bureaucratic procedures or use inefficient "green" technologies, their business capabilities would be severely hampered. If the environmentalists had their way, the Navy would not be able to conduct necessary tests. Imagine the costly consequences if the five above cases had been decided in the environmentalists' favor.

The Supreme Court is seeing through the deceptions of environmentalism and reining in the worst examples of judicial supremacy in this field. These laudable decisions are not an affront to environmental protection, but rather are a rebuke to environmentalists who place the environment above sensible job creation and productivity.