In a blow to the fight against climate change, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday limited how the main national law against air pollution can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
By a 6-3 vote, with the Conservatives in the majority, the court said the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. greenhouse effect of power plants contributing to global warming.
The court ruling could complicate the Biden administration’s plans to combat climate change. Its proposal to regulate emissions from power plants is expected by the end of the year.
President Joe Biden aims to halve the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade and have an emission-free power sector by 2035. Power plants account for about 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. carbon dioxide.
“Limiting carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a‘ sensible solution to the crisis of the day, ’” court president John wrote Roberts in his opinion to the court.
But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this issue.
“A decision of this magnitude and consequences rests with Congress itself, or with an agency acting in accordance with a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.
Biden, in a statement, described the ruling as “another devastating decision aimed at turning our country backwards.” He said he “would not give in by using my legal authorities to protect public health and deal with the climate crisis.”
The Sierra Club described the opinion as “a deeply disappointing and dangerous decision”.
“This decision gives coal executives and far-right politicians exactly what they called for, thwarting the EPA’s efforts to set solid and effective carbon pollution standards for power plants that help protect our communities and families, “the environmental organization said in a statement.
The verdict came on the same day that Biden accused the Supreme Court of “outrageous behavior” in a speech at the end of the NATO summit in Spain, referring to the high court’s opinion last week in which they annul the protections of the right to abortion.
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric called it “a setback in our fight against climate change.”
“But we must also remember that an emergency as global as climate change requires a global response, and the actions of a single nation should neither be able to do nor break if we achieve our climate goals,” Dujarric said.
“Creepy” sentence: Kagan’s dissent
In a dissent, Judge Elena Kagan wrote that the decision deprives the EPA of the power given to it by Congress.
“Anything else this Court may know has no idea how to tackle climate change,” Kagan said.
“The Court designates itself, rather than Congress or the expert agency, as responsible for climate policy decision-making. I can’t think of many more frightening things.”
Florida Democratic Congressman reaction:
I applaud today’s Supreme Court decision on WV against EPA.
This ruling in favor of WV will prevent unelected bureaucrats in Washington, DC, from unilaterally decarbonizing our economy just because they want to.
Read my full statement ⬇️https://t.co/PouPPlqJfI
– @ WVGovernor
Judges heard arguments in the case the same day the report from a UN panel warned that the effects of climate change are about to get much worse, and will likely make the world sicker, more hungry, poorer and more dangerous in the coming years.
The plant’s case has a long and complicated history that begins with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. This plan would have forced states to reduce emissions from electricity generation, mainly by moving away from coal-fired power plants.
But this plan never came into effect. Acting in a lawsuit filed by West Virginia and others, the Supreme Court blocked it in 2016 by a 5-4 vote, with the Conservatives in the majority.
With the plan pending, the legal fight for him continued. But after President Donald Trump took office, the EPA repealed the Obama-era plan. The agency argued that its authority to reduce carbon emissions was limited and devised a new plan that drastically reduced the role of the federal government in the issue.
Many corporate giants supported the White House position
New York, 21 other mostly Democratic states, the District of Columbia and some of the country’s largest cities sued for the Trump plan. The Washington Federal Court of Appeals ruled against both the repeal and the new plan, and its decision left nothing in force as the new administration drafted a new policy.
In addition to the unusual nature of the high court’s involvement, the cuts the Obama plan intended for 2030 have already been achieved through the market-driven closure of hundreds of coal-fired power plants.
Power plant operators serving 40 million people asked the court to preserve the flexibility of companies to reduce emissions and maintain a reliable service. Leading companies including Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Tesla also supported the administration.
Nineteen states and coal companies, mostly led by Republicans, led the fight in the Supreme Court against the broad EPA authority to regulate carbon production.
The EPA was established in 1970 by the administration of Republican Richard Nixon.
Read the Supreme Court’s opinion:
It was the Republican Attorney General’s Association that led the legal assault on the EPA, and they are heavily funded by special interests, such as fossil fuel consumption companies.
– @ AnnaForFlorida
The ruling was one of two issued by the Supreme Court on Thursday, with all cases tried in the 2021-22 session now resolved.
Liberal Judge Stephen Breyer announced his effective retirement on Thursday, with Ketanji Brown Jackson to be sworn in. Jackson, nominated by Biden, will become the first black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.