【Text/Observer Network Zhou Yibo】
Since Biden became president of the United States, the "climate agenda" that he regards as a symbol of his administration has encountered various obstacles, and this time it is the Supreme Court that has stopped him...
According to CNN, on June 30, local time, the U.S. Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Supreme Court") ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have the right to limit greenhouse gas emissions at the state level, nor can it require power plants to abandon fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy.
This is not only a significant loss to the Biden administration's climate agenda, but also a future prospect for climate action at the federal level. U.S. environmental law experts also noted that the ruling deprived the EPA of its "most effective tool" for controlling gas pollution from power plants. The BBC reported that in 2018, U.S. states accounted for 44 percent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions, while since 2000, states' average emissions have decreased by just 7 percent.
In response, Biden denounced the Supreme Court's once again "devastating decision to set our country back." U.N. Secretary-General spokesman Stephen Dugarik also lamented that such a decision by the United States, the world's leading economy and carbon emitter, would make it more difficult to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.
CNN reported screenshots
"This is a setback in our fight against climate change"
According to CNN and BBC news, the case heard by the Supreme Court was raised by 19 states represented by West Virginia, which are mainly controlled by the Republican Party, and a number of US coal industry giants also participated, and the defendant was EPA.
The 19 states argue that the EPA has no authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions across the state, while fearing that their power sector will be forced to abandon the use of coal, causing serious economic damage.
On June 30, the Supreme Court announced in favor of the 19 states in a 6-3 result, finding that the law did not give the EPA the power to implement such measures, and that the EPA could not force state power plants to abandon fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy.
It is worth noting that the 6 people who voted in support were conservative justices appointed by the Republican president, and 3 of them were appointed during the term of office of former US President Trump.
In the Republican view, the result is undoubtedly a "great victory" against the Biden administration. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmidt, one of the 19 states mentioned above, said the ruling would completely overturn the Biden administration's policy of "stifling jobs."
But in the view of some environmentalists and legal experts, the Supreme Court's ruling will seriously weaken the EPA's functioning and undermine the process of reducing emissions in response to global climate issues.
"Today's Supreme Court ruling weakens the EPA's power to protect people from climate pollution." Vicki Barton, general counsel of the Environmental Protection Foundation (EDF), a U.S.-based nonprofit, said, "All indications are that we must take (new) action immediately." ”
Richard Reves, an environmental law expert at NYU Law School, said that during the Obama administration, the EPA had tried to push for an energy transition for state power plants, which was "the most effective, efficient and lowest-cost way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants."
But the Supreme Court's ruling also means that the EPA no longer has the power to push for similar programs. "The court removed this tool, which in turn eliminated the EPA's most effective tool for controlling greenhouse gas pollution from existing power plants," Reves said. ”
Revies stressed that the EPA must now consider what other actions can be taken "within the limits," "for example, it may consider carbon capture and storage programs, while also considering whether the costs of doing so are reasonable." ”
The U.S. accounts for about 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, so the Supreme Court's ruling has also raised international concerns.
U.N. Secretary-General spokesman Stephen Dugarik said the ruling essentially deprived the EPA of its authority to reduce carbon emissions and was "a setback in our fight against climate change."
"The Secretary-General has repeatedly stressed that the G20 must take the lead in significantly strengthening climate action." Decisions like those made by the United States, Dugarrick said, make it more difficult to achieve the Paris Agreement's goals for a healthy, habitable planet.
Screenshot of the United Nations website
Christina Dahl, a senior climate scientist at the Alliance of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an American scientific initiative, also noted that "if greenhouse gas emissions are not controlled, they will endanger people and ecosystems around the world." ”
"We've fallen behind what science has proven necessary, which is dangerous, and the majority vote of the (supreme) court makes it more difficult to resolve this issue."
In 2018, U.S. states accounted for 44 percent of the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions, while since 2000, the average state emissions have decreased by only 7 percent.
EPA data also shows that about 25 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity generation, and coal is the fossil fuel that causes the highest carbon emissions, but provides about 20 percent of the electricity for the U.S.
A power plant in Kentucky, USA, is emitting gases Source: CNN
"Another devastating decision that set our country back"
In the eyes of many US media, for Biden, who has been trying to advance the "climate agenda", the Supreme Court's ruling has undoubtedly caused a clear obstacle to his "ambition".
On his first day as president, Biden announced his rejoining of the Paris Agreement, demonstrating his commitment to global climate issues.
Biden has also publicly pledged that by 2030, the United States will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 52 percent from 2005 levels.
According to the New York Times, after the Supreme Court's ruling on the 30th, Biden denounced the Supreme Court in a statement, bluntly saying that the ruling was "another devastating decision aimed at regressing our country."
Biden said conservative justices, who were the majority opinion in the ruling, were supporting "special interest groups" that launched "a long campaign to deprive us of our right to breathe clean air."
"Science confirms what we've seen with our own eyes – wildfires, droughts, extreme heat and intense storms that are threatening our lives and livelihoods." Biden said, "I'll take action. My administration will continue to use legitimate executive powers, including those of the EPA, to keep our air clean, protect public health, and respond to the climate crisis. ”
EPA Commissioner Michael Reagan also said in a statement, "While I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision, we are committed to using the full power of the EPA to protect communities and reduce the pollution that contributes to climate change." ”
US President Biden Image source: Visual China
But in the view of some experts, after the Supreme Court's ruling, Biden has moved farther and farther away from his proposed emissions reduction goals.
David Victor, a climate policy expert at the University of California, San Diego, said, "I don't see any way to achieve the kind of goals they [the Biden administration] set." ”
Although the Supreme Court made clear in its ruling that the EPA could regulate carbon emissions from power plants in each state if authorized by congress, The New York Times noted that Congress has so far failed to take any action on climate change.
Last year, the Biden administration and Democrats sought to push for a $1.9 trillion spending program, the Rebuild the Beauty Act, which aims to expand the U.S. Social Security system, reduce child care and health care costs, and focus on climate change.
But while the bill was passed by the House of Representatives and in the process of negotiating with republicans for approval in the Senate, Senator Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, suddenly and publicly opposed the bill, resulting in the negotiations being substantively terminated and still no progress.
According to U.S. media, Manchin himself has always benefited from his family's coal business, and the west Virginia oil, coal and gas industries have also made significant donations to Manchin. Linked by this interest, Manchin opposed the climate bill of late President Barack Obama as early as 2010 when he ran for the Senate, and repeatedly declared that he wanted to "protect the interests of West Virginia."
A coal-fired power station in West Virginia
There have been three governments fighting over the reduction of emissions from power plants
So why did the Supreme Court make this decision? In fact, the controversy over emissions reductions between federal agencies and state power plants has been going on for years.
In 1963, the United States enacted the Clean Air Act (CAA), which is also one of the earliest and most influential modern environmental laws in the United States.
The act provides that the EPA has the power to create regulations requiring states to submit a specific plan for their state to control emissions of polluting gases. The EPA also has the authority to oversee the implementation of plans submitted by states and to plan for states when they do not.
In 2014, at the urging of the Obama administration, the EPA proposed a Clean Power Plan (CPP) based on the above provisions, requiring states to reduce carbon emissions from power plants in the state to reduce the carbon emissions from electricity generation by about 32% by 2030 compared with 2005.
The CPP notes that states must submit specific plans to achieve the target by 2018 and begin implementing them at least in 2022. However, due to the lawsuits initiated by Republican-led states, the CPP was once suspended by the courts and was not actually enforced.
After Trump succeeded Obama as U.S. president, the changing EPA decided to repeal the CPP and issued the Affordable Clean Energy Rules (ACE) as an alternative in June 2019.
While the ACE still requires states to meet emissions reduction targets, it is significantly more lenient than the CPP and reduces the energy transition requirements for power plants, with the view that the rule is actually trying to "save" those fossil fuel sectors.
In July 2019, several social institutions, including the American Public Health Association, filed a lawsuit to try to overturn the rule.
On January 19, 2021, the day before Biden took office as president, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, revoked ACE and its repeal of the CPP, citing EAP's "slowing the process of reducing emissions" and "misinterpreting the scope of the clean air act's mandate." That said, the EPA will have the right to continue enforcing the CPP, which imposes stricter restrictions on states.
As a result, 19 states, represented by West Virginia, immediately petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that the above-mentioned ruling gave EAP too much power to regulate carbon emissions, and asked the Supreme Court to re-examine the ruling and clarify the scope of the EPA's authorization under the Clean Air Act.
On June 30 of this year, the Supreme Court announced in favor of the opinions of West Virginia and other states in a 6:3 result, and also limited the scope of the EPA's powers by invoking the "principle of major issues."
The "material issues principle" here means that the discretion of U.S. federal agencies on significant issues involving broad regulatory action should be limited.
Based on this, the majority conservative justices said that if Congress intends to have the EPA enact comprehensive regulations on an industry in the United States, it should explicitly include that power in the Clean Air Act.
In January, the Supreme Court also invoked the "principle of major issues" to reject the Biden administration's plan to force employees of large companies to be vaccinated.
But in the view of some legal experts, the criteria for so-called "major issues" are uncertain, which will allow the Supreme Court to further weaken the regulatory powers of federal agencies.
"The court said you can't do a 'big thing' without congressional approval, so what is a 'big thing'?" Kelly Jenks, executive director of harvard law school's Environmental and Energy Law Program, noted, "I think they will continue to use the 'significant materials principle' to oppose other EPA provisions." ”
The BBC also noted in its analysis that for decades, the Supreme Court has held that judges often choose to respect the opinions of government agencies when interpreting federal law. But this practice is being gradually abolished after conservative justices take the majority, and the "principle of major issues" is slowly becoming the majority opinion.
Kitty Datra, an attorney for Earthjustick, a nonprofit focused on climate litigation, said the verdict paved the way for Republican-led states and fossil fuel companies to challenge the EPA's current and future emissions reduction regulations.
"I think the biggest 'takeaway' from this case is that the court's opinion is fully in line with the requirements of the challengers (Republican-led states and coal companies)." Dartra said.