Washington – The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, dealing a significant blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to combat climate change.
The court divided ideologically 6-3, finding that Congress, through the Clean Air Act, did not give EPA the power to independently adopt a regulatory scheme to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to combat global warming. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority’s opinion, while the court’s three-member liberal bloc disagreed.
The decision is a victory for a group of Republican-led states and coal companies in their long-standing experience in limiting EPA’s power to issue regulations designed to limit carbon emissions.
“Limiting carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will force a nationwide transition from using coal to power could be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day,” Roberts wrote. “But it is unlikely that Congress has given the EPA the power to adopt such a regulatory scheme on its own in section 111 (d). A decision of this magnitude and effect depends on Congress itself or on an agency acting in accordance with a clear delegation from that representative body. ‘
Judge Elena Kagan, joined by Judges Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the majority in court for imposing restrictions on EPAs that “fly in the face” of the statute written by Congress, and accused the majority of substituting “their own ideas for policy-making with those of Congress. ” “
“Whatever else this court knows, it has no idea how to deal with climate change. And let’s say the obvious: the stakes are high here, “Judge Elena Kagan wrote in disagreement. “Yet today, the court is preventing the actions of a congressionally authorized agency to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The Court is appointed – instead of Congress or the expert agency – to decide on climate policy. I can’t think of much worse things. “
The case stems from the EPA’s Clean Energy Plan, finalized in 2015, which implemented a directive by then-President Barack Obama to use an additional provision of the Clean Air Act to tackle climate change by mandating existing coal-fired power plants and natural gas to reduce emissions.
More than half of the states and other parties have challenged the clean energy plan in federal court, and the Supreme Court in 2016 suspended the proposal by 5-4 votes. As the proceedings continued, there was a change in presidential administrations, and then-President Donald Trump’s EPA repealed Obama-era standards after he determined he was “significantly exceeding” his powers under federal environmental law. The agency has also introduced new guidelines for coal-fired power plants.
The repeal of the clean energy plan and the new guidelines were then challenged by a group of 22 states, environmental groups and other stakeholders, although 19 states, largely Republican-led, and coal companies intervened in support of the administration’s efforts. Trump.
In July 2021, the DC Circuit overturned the Trump administration’s repeal of the clean energy plan and subsequent replacement plan. The United States then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court’s decision gave EPA broad powers over carbon emissions and to unilaterally reshape significant sectors of the U.S. economy.
“The way we respond to climate change is a pressing issue for our nation, but some of the way forward is serious and disproportionate to the states and countless other countries,” West Virginia officials told the court, asking judges to begin the case.
President Biden has promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% from 2005 to 2030 levels, and plans to combat climate change have been a cornerstone of his domestic policy agenda, called the Better Recovery Plan. But the president’s proposal has stalled in the Senate, and it is unlikely that the upper house will enforce climate regulations.
Mr Biden condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling, calling it “devastating” and harmful to the nation, but promised to find ways for his administration to fight climate change, including through EPA action.
“Today’s decision is on the side of special interests, who conducted a long-term campaign to deprive us of the right to breathe clean air,” he said in a statement. “We cannot and will not ignore the danger to public health and the existential threat posed by the climate crisis. Science confirms what we all see with our own eyes – forest fires, droughts, extreme heat and intense storms threaten our lives and livelihoods. “
The president continued: “Our fight against climate change must continue and will continue to do so.”
A number of major companies, including Apple, Amazon, Google and Tesla, backed the Biden administration in the dispute, telling the Supreme Court in a statement by a friend of the court that while making its own efforts to mitigate climate change, it is vital that the EPA play a leading role. role by regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
The Supreme Court’s decision to limit the EPA’s powers runs counter to what climate experts warn needs to be done urgently to prevent the worst effects of the climate crisis. Behavioral climate and health scientist Sveta Chakraborty, president of the climate solutions group We Don’t Have Time, told CBS News that stricter regulations are needed instead.
“We allow for free for everyone. And it can’t be a worse time,” she said. “We are in a climate emergency.”
It also sets a “dangerous precedent,” she said, as the ruling says “we don’t need governments to regulate the industry” and that more federal policies and regulations can be removed.
“Having this type of solution actually means it’s free for all oil and gas – we can actually support the pollution of our communities in the United States without apology,” she said. “And it’s an extremely dangerous way down.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling will also undoubtedly affect the US view of the world stage, Chakraborty said. Biden’s election “renewed global hope” for US leadership on the climate issue, she said, but that could change depending on policy.
“The promises made by the Biden administration and Biden himself have not yet been fulfilled. And this SCOTUS sentence is another example of how we are actually going back, “she said. “What belief do we actually give to the rest of the world that the United States is actually doing its part?”
Add Comment