The court split 6-3 on ideological grounds, finding that Congress, through the Clean Air Act, did not give the EPA the power to adopt a regulatory system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants for combating global warming. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, while the three-member liberal bloc of the court disagreed. The decision is a victory for a Republican-led group of states and coal companies in their long-running effort to limit the EPA’s power to pass carbon emissions regulations. “Reducing carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will force a national transition from using coal to electricity generation can be a logical ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Roberts wrote. “But it is not reasonable that Congress gave the EPA the power to adopt such a regulatory system on its own in Section 111 (d). A decision of this magnitude and consistency belongs to Congress itself or to a service acting in accordance with delegation from this representative body “. Judge Elena Kagan, along with Judges Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the majority of the court for imposing limits on the EPA that “overturned” the statute written by Congress and accused the majority of replacing “its own ideas about policy-making for Congress. . “ “Whatever this court may know, it has no idea how to deal with climate change. And let’s just say the obvious: The stakes here are high,” Judge Elena Kagan wrote. “However, the court is currently blocking the action of the authorized congressional service to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of power plants. “I can not think of many things more frightening.” The case comes from the EPA Clean Energy Plan, finalized in 2015, which implemented a directive by then-President Barack Obama to use an ancillary clean air bill to tackle climate change by imposing orders on existing coal-fired power plants. and gas. emission reduction. More than half of the states and other parties challenged the Clean Energy Plan in federal court, and the Supreme Court in 2016 suspended the proposal by a 5-4 vote. As the proceedings continued, there was a change in the presidential administration and the EPA under then-President Donald Trump abolished the Obama-era standards after finding that it was “significantly exceeding” its powers under federal environmental law. The agency also developed new guidelines for coal-fired power stations. The abolition of the Clean Energy Plan and the new guidelines were subsequently challenged by a group of 22 states, environmental groups and other stakeholders, although 19 states, led mainly by Republicans, and coal companies intervened to support the government’s actions. In July 2021, the DC Circuit overturned the Trump administration’s abolition of the Clean Energy Plan and its subsequent replacement plan. The states then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court ruling gives the EPA broad powers over carbon emissions and to unilaterally rebuild major sectors of the US economy. “How we respond to climate change is a pressing issue for our nation, but some of the paths ahead are costly to the states and countless others,” West Virginia officials told the court. take over the case. President Biden has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% from 2005 levels by 2030, and plans to combat climate change have been a cornerstone of his domestic policy agenda, called the Build Back Better plan. However, the president’s proposal was delayed in the Senate and it is unlikely that the upper house will move to implement the climate provisions. The Supreme Court’s decision to limit the EPA’s power runs counter to what climate experts warn must be done urgently to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis. Behavioral scientist for climate and health Sweta Chakraborty, chair of climate solutions group We Don’t Have Time, told CBS News that stricter regulations are needed instead. “We allow a free one for everyone. And it could not be a worse time,” he said. “We are in a state of emergency for the climate.” It also sets a “dangerous precedent,” he said, as the ruling says “we do not need governments to regulate industry” and that more federal policies and regulations could be repealed. “Having this kind of decision actually means that it is an oil and gas free for all … we can really support without apology the pollution of our communities in the United States,” he said. “And this is an extremely dangerous path to follow.” The Supreme Court ruling will also undoubtedly affect US views on the world stage, Chakraborty said. Biden’s election to the post “renewed global hope” for the US leadership on climate change, he said, but that could change on the basis of politics. “The promises made by the Biden government and Biden himself have not yet been fulfilled. And this SCOTUS crisis is another example that we are actually going backwards,” he said. “What do we really believe in the rest of the world that the United States is really doing its part?”
