Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

8 

MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20 centimeters over 
the  20th  century  as  a  result  of  global  warming”  and  that 
“[t]hese rising seas have already begun to swallow Massa-
chusetts’ coastal land.”  Ante, at 19.  But none of petition-
ers’  declarations  supports  that  connection.    One  declara-
tion states that “a rise in sea level due to climate change is 
occurring on the coast of Massachusetts, in the metropoli-
tan Boston area,” but there is no elaboration.  Petitioners’ 
Standing  Appendix  in  No.  03–1361,  etc.  (CADC),  p.  196 
(Stdg. App.).  And the declarant goes on to identify a “sig-
nifican[t]” non-global-warming cause of Boston’s rising sea 
level:  land  subsidence.  Id.,  at  197;  see  also  id.,  at  216. 
Thus,  aside  from  a  single  conclusory  statement,  there  is 
nothing  in  petitioners’  43  standing  declarations  and  ac-
companying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss 
of  Massachusetts  coastal  land  from  20th  century  global 
sea level increases.  It is pure conjecture. 

The  Court’s  attempts  to  identify  “imminent”  or  “cer-
tainly impending” loss of Massachusetts coastal land fares 
no  better.  See  ante,  at  19–20.    One  of  petitioners’  decla-
rants  predicts  global  warming  will  cause  sea  level  to  rise 
by 20 to 70 centimeters by the year 2100.  Stdg. App. 216.
Another  uses  a  computer  modeling  program  to  map  the 
Commonwealth’s  coastal  land  and  its  current  elevation, 
and calculates that the high-end estimate of sea level rise 
would result in the loss of significant state-owned coastal
land.  Id.,  at  179.    But  the  computer  modeling  program 
has a conceded average error of about 30 centimeters and 
a maximum observed error of 70 centimeters.  Id., at 177– 
178.  As  an  initial  matter,  if  it  is  possible  that  the  model
underrepresents the elevation of coastal land to an extent 
equal  to  or  in  excess  of  the  projected  sea  level  rise,  it  is
difficult  to  put  much  stock  in  the  predicted  loss  of  land.
But  even  placing  that  problem  to  the  side,  accepting  a 
century-long  time  horizon  and  a  series  of  compounded 
estimates  renders  requirements  of  imminence  and  imme-