The Supreme Court has issued one of the most important environmental rulings to date. This makes the fight against global warming even more difficult.
This newsletter explains the basics of a court decision and then talks to a colleague, Coral Davenport, about what it means. It’s a major setback to the United States’ ability to keep its promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The court considers whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to issue broad and aggressive regulations on climate warming pollution from power plants that will be forced to close many of their power plants. I was asked to do it. In a 6 to 3 decision, the judge ruled that the agency did not have such authority.
The West Virginia Environmental Protection Agency’s ruling may not only limit the power of the EPA, but may also limit the power of other agencies that enact broad regulations to protect the environment and public health. This was coordinated by Republican Attorney General, conservative legal activists, and their funders to rewrite environmental law using the judicial system, weakening the ability of government agencies to tackle global warming. It was the result of a multi-year strategy.
It follows other major decisions this season regarding guns and reproductive rights that will change the lives of the American generation.
“Thanks to the Trump administration’s three appointments, the Supreme Court has been swung to the right. They are not afraid of major changes,” said Blake Emerson, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The Clean Power Plan, a federal regulation of the Obama era adopted under the Clean Air Act of 1970, aimed at controlling greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. After a barrage of proceedings from Republican states and the coal industry, the Supreme Court put the program on hold in 2016, which never came into effect.
The Biden administration sought to dismiss the case, claiming that EPA rules were not in place for the court to consider. That didn’t work, and in the end, the court upheld a group of plaintiffs, Republican prosecutors. And they argued that Congress alone should have the power to set rules that would have a significant impact on the American economy.
But Congress has mostly adhered to climate law. Its lack of action by lawmakers has increased the federal government’s reliance on regulations to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions.
The power sector Second largest source In the United States, after shipping.
The failure of the United States, the largest greenhouse gas emitter in history, to meet its climate goals could mean that the world cannot sustain global warming at levels about 1.5 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels. Is expensive. Scientists say that above that threshold greatly increases the likelihood of catastrophic heat waves, droughts, floods, and widespread extinction.
Since the Industrial Revolution, the earth has already heated an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius.
Its meaning
I spoke to Coral, who is in charge of energy and environmental policy from the Washington office of the Times, to better understand what this incident means for the future.
Manuela: Does this ruling mean that EPA cannot control emissions at all?
Coral: This ruling does not preclude the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. But that limits it significantly. President Biden and President Barack Obama have used the power of the Clean Air Act to instruct the EPA to create broad rules to transform the electricity sector, with widespread closure of coal and gas-fired power plants and replacement with wind power. I wanted to bring you. , Sunlight and other clean power sources.
This decision means that the EPA cannot implement the drastic transformation policies that climate experts say are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, you can have very narrow and conservative regulations that can slightly reduce emissions in margins.
Manuela: Can the United States now meet its climate goals?
Coral: Mathematics has become even more difficult. President Biden has promised the world that the United States will reduce greenhouse pollution by 50% from 2005 levels by 2030. To that end, most experts say the United States needs a combination of new legislation and aggressive regulation. The most polluted sectors of the industry — vehicles, power plants, oil and drilling wells. This decision takes one of those tools and makes it much less effective.
It remains unclear whether Congress will pass climate law and what it will be like. The EPA is developing aggressive new rules on vehicle pollution, but the same group of plaintiffs who won Thursday’s decision are expected to challenge in court.
Manuela: What can the White House and Congress do next?
Coral: President Biden and Congress still have some tools to combat climate change. At Capitol Hill, spending bills, including tax credits of around $ 300 billion on wind, solar and other forms of clean energy and electric vehicles, are stagnant. If enacted, analysts will help Biden follow one-third to one-half of his goal of reducing emissions by 50% from 2005 levels by 2030. It states that there is a possibility.
In addition, the EPA still has other regulatory agencies to reduce emissions. We are working on new rules to reduce methane, a powerful greenhouse gas leaking from oil and gas wells, and to accelerate the transition from gasoline vehicles. For electric vehicles.
However, it is not yet clear whether the bill, which has been in force since December, will be removed from the Senate. And other EPA rules will be subject to proceedings from the same group of Republican prosecutors and fossil fuel companies that won today’s Supreme Court ruling.
Manuela: Does this ruling affect other climates as well?
Coral: To do.
A proceeding against the EPA rules aimed at accelerating the transition from gasoline-powered vehicles to electric vehicles is already pending in lower courts. The proceedings were filed by many of the same plaintiffs in the power plant proceedings and make the same allegations. This means that the agency does not have the authority to create rules that will transform the entire economic sector. Therefore, this is not a guarantee, but it does indicate that the Supreme Court is likely to find it in favor of the plaintiff. This limits another major tool that the federal government must fight climate change.
background
argument: A conservative majority of the courts were skeptical that Congress allowed the EPA to decide what they said was a major economic issue.
A powerful tool that is gone: The ruling leaves President Biden with few options to curb US emissions. It’s one of a series of setbacks.
Gridlocked Parliament: The Biden administration’s radical climate change and social policy bill, “Build Back Better,” has been stagnant for months.
Company to punish: Throughout the United States, Republicans and their allies are pressing companies to stop trying to reduce emissions.
thank you for reading. Due to this special Thursday edition, you will not receive the Climate Forward as usual on Fridays. I’ll be back on Tuesday.
Claire O’Neill and Douglas Alteen contributed to Climate Forward.
Please contact Climateforward@nytimes.com. We read every message and reply to many!