Supreme Court Justices on EPA's CO2 Control

Open email to:
Rep. John Shimkus, Chairman House Subcommittee on the Environment and Economy.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, Chairwoman Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Sen. David Vitter, Member Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 

Dear Rep. Shimkus and Senators Boxer and Vitter,
USA Today reports that last Monday the Supreme Court appeared headed toward restricting the federal government's authority to require permits for major emitters of greenhouse gases. The article is by Richard Wolf. What it means is that the Supreme Court justices are skeptical about EPA's plan to restrict emission of carbon dioxide from electricity generating plants.
The article also has a picture of three smokestacks, two of which are belching forth black smoke. I must remind you that this is another attempt to deceive, in that carbon dioxide is actually a colorless gas. Black smoke is caused by its content of soot particles. Black smoke has been controlled for years and has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions.
However, the main point of the article is the skepticism of the Supreme Court justices concerning the EPA, which is absolutely justified. Unfortunately, while the Supreme Court Court Justices are coming up with the right answers, they are doing so from an incorrect perspective. They apparently do not understand the science involved in climate. I cannot fault them for this deficiency, because they have bombarded with false information from pseudoscientists.
I am now again trying to correct this misunderstanding, which is also prevalent in society.
Any planetary body, such as Earth, which has an atmosphere, owes its moderate temperature extremes to the presence of that atmosphere. The gases in Earth's atmosphere, such as nitrogen, oxygen and miscellaneous gases are greenhouse gases. They moderate the temperature differences between night and day, with the result that Earth has a habitable environment for humans. Therefore, greenhouse gases are good; not bad, as continually touted by pseudoscientists. Without those greenhouse gases, we would be boiling during the day and freezing during the night..
There is also the matter of quantity or concentration. An example is the effect of one penny on the $17 trillion debt. An effect? Yes, but insignificant.
Now jump to the Earth's atmosphere. The major gases of the atmosphere, which constitute the greenhouse gases are 78% nitrogen, and 21% oxygen. Because of these high concentrations, they are essentially responsible for all Earth's greenhouse effects. Of the 1% miscellaneous gases in the atmosphere, only 0.05% is carbon dioxide. Like the penny in the $17 trillion debt analogy, 0.05% is so small as to be insignificant. Does it have an effect? Yes, but an insignificant effect. That being the case, why would anybody in their right mind want to spend billions and trillions of dollars in controlling it?