On Thursday (June 30), the U.S. Supreme Court severely restricted the federal government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and passed a 6-3 ruling between the court’s conservative majority and free minority. I gave it.
Arbitrage of the case called West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), six conservative judges in court have determined that the EPA, established in 1970 to curb widespread pollution and implement national environmental protection policies, has no regulatory authority. did. Greenhouse gas Emissions nationwide without explicit approval from the US Congress.
Judge John Roberts wrote the majority opinion of the court.
“Capping carbon dioxide Emissions at levels that would force a nationwide shift from coal-based electricity generation could be a wise “solution to the crisis of the day,” Roberts wrote, citing previous cases. rice field. Such scale and consequences depend on the parliament itself, or an agency that acts in accordance with a clear delegation from its representative body. “
Opposing on behalf of the court’s three liberal judges, Judge Elena Kagan wrote that the court replaced the EPA’s decision with a virtually non-informed decision.
“No matter what else this court knows, there are no clues as to how to deal with climate change,” Kagan wrote. “The court appoints climate policy decision makers on behalf of parliament and academic institutions. It can’t be more scary.”
The case in question is based on an EPA policy called the Clean Power Plan announced by President Barack Obama in 2015. The plan proposed three state carbon reduction strategies, including an increase in renewable energy and a call for the use of natural gas. To retire a heavily polluted coal plant Vice.com report. However, the Supreme Court has blocked the Clean Power Plan from coming into force in 2016.
No plans were enacted, and alternative EPA emission policies were not successfully implemented by the Trump and Biden administrations. However, coal companies and several Republican-controlled countries, including West Virginia, continued to fight the hypothetical provisions of the now abolished plan and eventually filed a complaint with the West Virginia v. EPA Supreme Court. ..
Some legal scholars argued that the court should not hear the case at all, but the plaintiffs were fighting a regulatory plan that never came into force, so the court heard the case and the EPA had the power to enact the same. Agreed to decide whether to have a future nationwide carbon dioxide emission reduction policy.
A court ruling that the EPA cannot mandate a national energy policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions without special approval from Congress could undermine the US government’s ability to fight. Climate changeAccording to the objection.
The United States is the second largest annual greenhouse gas emitter in the world after China. According to legal scholars, President Joe Biden’s goal of converting the US power grid to clean energy by 2035 and cutting greenhouse gases in half by the end of the decade now looks distant. New York Times..
“Instead, by claiming that the court can promulgate important and important climate rules only by showing” clear parliamentary approval “when the court knows that parliament is virtually dysfunctional. Welfare has threatened to overturn the government’s ability to protect public health, “Harbourd University law professor Richard Lazaro told the New York Times.
Biden’s climate agenda is personal with 50 Republicans in the US Senate and Democratic Senators in West Virginia. Financial relationship with the coal industry, Previously reported Times. According to the new Supreme Court’s ruling, all expectations for important climate change measures in the United States now rest on this divided parliament.
Originally published on Live Science.
Supreme Court cripples EPA’s power to fight climate change
Source link Supreme Court cripples EPA’s power to fight climate change