Washington – Supreme Court on Thursday limited the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, giving a significant blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to fight against climate change.
The court split 6-3 on ideological lines in finding that Congress, through the Clean Air Act, did not grant the EPA the authority to adopt a regulatory scheme for itself to limit carbon dioxide emissions. of power plants to combat global warming. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, while the Liberal bloc of three members of the court disagreed.
The decision is a victory for a group of states led by Republicans and coal companies in their attempt for years to reduce the EPA’s power to issue regulations aimed at curbing carbon emissions.
“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,” Roberts wrote. “But it is not plausible that Congress has given the EPA the authority to adopt such a regulatory scheme on its own in section 111 (d). A decision of this magnitude and consequences is up to Congress itself or an agency that acts in accordance with a clear delegation from this representative body ”.
Judge Elena Kagan, along with Judges Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the majority of the court for imposing limits on the EPA that “face” the statute drafted by Congress and accused the majority of replacing “their own ideas.” on policy making by Congress. ” . “
“Anything else this court may know has no idea how to tackle climate change. And let’s just say it’s obvious: there’s a lot at stake here,” Judge Elena Kagan wrote in disagreement. “However, the court today impedes the action of the agency authorized by Congress to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The court appoints itself, rather than Congress or the expert agency, who makes climate policy decisions. I can’t think of many more frightening things. “
The case stems from the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, completed in 2015, which implemented a directive by then-President Barack Obama to use an ancillary provision of the Clear Air Act to address climate change by imposing mandates on coal-fired power plants. and existing natural gas reduce emissions.
More than half of the states and other parties challenged the Clean Energy Plan in a federal court, and the Supreme Court in 2016 stopped implementing the proposal with a 5 to 4 vote. While the proceedings continued, there was a change in presidential administrations and the EPA under then-President Donald Trump repealed Obama-era standards after determining that it “significantly exceeded” its authority under federal environmental law. The agency also launched new guidelines for coal-fired power plants.
The repeal of the Clean Energy Plan and the new guidelines were questioned by a group of 22 states, environmental groups and other stakeholders, although 19 states, largely led by Republicans, and coal companies intervened in support. of the actions of the Trump administration.
In July 2021, the DC circuit overturned the Trump administration’s repeal of the clean energy plan and subsequent replacement plan. The states then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court’s decision gives the EPA broad power over carbon emissions and to unilaterally rebuild significant sectors of the U.S. economy.
“How we respond to climate change is an urgent issue for our nation, but some of the paths to follow involve serious and disproportionate costs for states and countless other parties,” West Virginia officials told the court when asking judges to take the case.
President Biden has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% from 2005 levels to 2030, and plans to combat climate change were a cornerstone of his domestic policy agenda. , called Plan Reconstruct Better. But the president’s proposal stalled in the Senate, and the upper house is unlikely to move on to implementing climate provisions.
Biden condemned the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it “devastating” and detrimental to the nation, but vowed to find ways for his administration to fight climate change, even through EPA action.
“Today’s decision is on the side of special interests who have campaigned long-term to remove our right to breathe clean air,” it 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 storms are endangering our lives and our livelihoods. “
The president continued: “Our fight against climate change must move forward, and it will.”
Supporting the Biden administration in the dispute there were a number of large companies, such as Apple, Amazon, Google and Tesla, who told the high court in a letter from friends of the court that while they are doing their own efforts to mitigate climate change. , it is “vital” that the EPA “play a leading role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to limit the EPA’s power goes against what climate experts warn urgently needs to be done to prevent the worst effects of the climate crisis. Climate behavior and health scientist Sweta Chakraborty, chair of climate solutions group We Don’t Have Time, told CBS News that stricter regulations are needed.
“We’re allowing one free for everyone. And it couldn’t be a worse time,” he said. “We are in a climate emergency.”
It also sets a “dangerous precedent,” he said, as the decision says “we don’t need governments to regulate industry” and that more federal policies and regulations could be dismantled.
“Having that kind of sentence is actually saying it’s oil and gas free for everyone … we can actually unabatedly support the pollution of our communities in the United States,” he said. “And this is an extremely dangerous path to take down.”
The Supreme Court decision will also no doubt affect the U.S. view on the world stage, Chakraborty said. Mr. Biden’s election to office “renewed global hope” for U.S. leadership on the climate issue, he said, but that could change depending on politics.
“The promises that the Biden administration and Biden himself have made have not yet come true. And this SCOTUS trial is one more example that we are really going backwards,” he said. “What faith are we really giving to the rest of the world that the United States is doing its part?”