The ruling by the current right-wing court is in favor of the plaintiffs seeking to limit the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution from fossil fuel power stations, which reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30%. The six conservatives in the court were in the majority, with the three liberals disagreeing. Disagreeing, Judge Kagan said in legal documents that the Supreme Court “has no idea how to tackle climate change. And let’s face it: the stakes here are high.” She described as “frightening” the fact that “the Court appoints itself – instead of Congress or the Office of Experts – to be responsible for climate policy decisions”. Judge Gorsuch, in agreement with the decision, rejected this analysis, saying: “The Court only recognizes that … the elected representatives of the people in Congress are the decision-makers here – and have not clearly delegated to the service the power it claims to be. herself.” “Climate leader” The decision undermines Mr. Biden, a Democrat, who is able to implement climate policy without the support of lawmakers in Congress, as well as his ability to live up to his ambitions to be a “climate leader.” His government set a goal to free the energy sector from carbon emissions by 2035 and took office in the hope of using the EPA as the main tool to do so. But speaking to Sky News two weeks ago, EPA chief Michael S. Regan said that while the case was “very important”, the president had “a number of tools in his toolbox” to tackle pollution. In addition to Congress, which is subject to partisanship but is more binding in the long run, President Biden could regulate greenhouse gases indirectly through other rules for other air pollutants. Christina DeConcini, a lawyer and director of government affairs at the World Resources Institute based in Washington, D.C., said the decision “falls in the face of science.” But he said “the most important thing” for the United States to do to achieve its climate goals would be for Congress to approve the clean energy tax credit package currently being negotiated. Skepticism SCOTUS was skeptical of the power of federal regulators such as the EPA – which exists within the executive – to operate without relying on congressional legislative power for approval. The EPA is the key authority responsible for protecting the public from pollution and other environmental toxins by regulating industry. Last week, the same judges voted in favor of overturning the constitutional right to abortion, which has existed for almost 50 years, paving the way for half of the country to severely restrict or ban the practice altogether. West Virginia vs. EPA Two coal companies and 17 U.S. Republican states – led by West Virginia, a major coal producer – have asked judges to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing flue-fired power plants. Clean Air Act. law. The challenge came after the EPA under then-President Barack Obama in 2015 tried to urge power plants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions – under a sweeping rule called the Clean Energy Plan – mainly by switching to clean energy sources such as solar and wind. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) suspended the rule in 2016, which means that there are no regulations in place now that would reduce carbon emissions from power plants. The states have argued that the EPA has overstepped its bounds by trying to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act and doing so in a way that would have huge economic consequences. Watch the Daily Climate Show at 15:30 Monday through Friday on Sky News, the Sky News website and app, on YouTube and Twitter. The show explores how global warming is changing our landscape and highlighting solutions to the crisis.
