The high court’s ruling that the US government could not use its existing powers to phase out coal-fired power generation without “clear congressional approval” quickly ricocheted around the world among those now used to seeing with frustration at America’s seemingly endless faltering in dealing with global warming. The decision “disproves established science and will overturn the US commitment to keep global temperatures below 1.5C,” said Saleemul Huq, director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh, referring to the internationally agreed target . to limit global warming before it becomes truly catastrophic, manifesting itself in more severe heatwaves, floods, droughts and social unrest. “The people who will pay the price for this will be the most vulnerable communities in the most vulnerable developing countries in the world,” Huq added. The “incredibly undemocratic Scotus decision” shows that “backsliding is now the dominant trend in the climate space,” said Yamide Dagnet, director of climate justice at the Open Society Foundations and a former climate negotiator for the UK and the European Union. Antonio Guterres, the UN secretary-general, who has called new fossil fuel infrastructure “moral and economic madness”, said through a spokesman that the decision was a “setback” at a time when countries were well off track in preventing the impending climate collapse. In the 6-3 decision, backed by a right-wing majority of justices, the high court did not completely overturn the ability of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate emissions from coal plants. But he joined Republican-led states in saying the administration could not set broad plans to shift electricity generation away from coal because of the nebulous “big questions doctrine” that requires Congress to explicitly decide on major changes in the US economy. “The court designates itself, rather than Congress or the agency, as the climate policy decision maker,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in an unusually blunt dissenting opinion. “I can’t think of many things scarier.” Al Gore, the former US vice president, said the decision was “the result of decades of lobbying and coordination by the fossil fuel lobby and its allies to delay, obstruct and derail progress toward climate solutions.” For Biden, who called the decision “devastating,” the court ruling is just the latest crushing blow to what he described as a “climate presidency” when he took office. Landmark legislation to boost clean energy has stalled in Congress, largely due to opposition from Joe Manchin, a centrist Democrat who owns a coal trading company, and is dangerously close to not being resurrected in time for midterm elections later this year in which Democrats are expected to lose their tenuous hold on Congress. The US, almost uniquely among major democracies, still has no national climate or energy policy. Biden’s promise to end oil and gas drilling on public land has not been fulfilled, while Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent gasoline prices soaring, prompting the president to urge oil companies to increase output, to the dismay of his supporters. climate. The president has pledged that the US will cut its emissions in half by 2030, but that goal, and America’s declining international credibility on climate change, will be lost without legislation from Congress and strong executive action. Both of these factors remain highly uncertain, with the high court’s decision drastically limiting the latter option. Gina McCarthy, the White House’s top climate adviser, admitted the government will have to be “creative” in cutting emissions. “Congressional climate action was important before this decision, it’s even more important now,” said John Larsen, a partner at the Rhodium Group, a climate and energy analysis organization. According to Rhodium, the high court decision is not fatal to US climate goals, but there are still 1.7 to 2.3 billion tons of greenhouse gases that will need to be prevented beyond current policy if the 2030 goal achieved. “The EPA still has authority, although it’s narrower than it was, so they have to move and make some rules because there’s not much time left,” Larsen said. “It is entirely possible that the US will meet its emissions target, but we only have eight years until 2030. The ball needs to start rolling very quickly, very soon, if we want to get there. Everyone really needs to step up and start giving.”
