Joe Biden’s climate protection plans are in acute danger – and with them those of the Paris Agreement. The conservative majority on the US Supreme Court on Thursday restricted the powers of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. They wanted to impose stricter regulations on power plants as part of a clean air plan. This would have led to the closure of coal-fired power plants and their replacement with lower-carbon energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear fuel. The coal industry has vehemently opposed the regulations, especially those in West Virginia, which brought the current case to court.
Now six of the nine judges on the Supreme Court have ruled that the environmental authority has exceeded its powers. You can only impose regulations for individual power plants. However, there is no basis in current environmental law for sector-wide reduction plans and regulations.
Tightening the requirements for limiting carbon dioxide emissions so that less coal is burned as a result could be a sensible solution, according to the judgment written by conservative judge John Roberts. But it is not plausible that Congress would have given the environmental agency such authority. “A decision of such scope and consequence rests with Congress itself or with an authority acting on the basis of clear instructions from this representative body,” the ruling reads.
A new law from Congress would be necessary, which would take years – the climate targets for the years 2030 and 2050 are set. The Supreme Court has thus deprived Biden of a quickly effective instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
UN calls it a backlash
This could put the United States – the world’s second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases – even further behind on its targets. They have committed themselves to the Paris climate agreement, which envisages a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050. According to this, electricity should be produced in a climate-neutral manner by 2035. Climate expert David Victor from the University of California at San Diego said the New York Times: “Right now, I don’t see any way they can still achieve their goals.”
The United Nations described the verdict as a “setback in our fight against climate change”. US President Joe Biden called the Supreme Court verdict “another devastating ruling that is taking our country backwards”. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court is siding with corporate interests that have waged a year-long campaign to steal the right to clean air. “Science confirms what we’re seeing with our own eyes, the wildfires, the droughts, the extreme heat, the intense storms are threatening our lives and livelihoods,” Biden said. “I will respond to that.” The only question is how.
Because the hopes of climate protection now rest primarily on the individual states. The economic powerhouses, California and New York City, show how it works: In California, for example, only climate-neutral new cars will be registered from 2035. However, only half of the 50 countries have adopted climate protection plans. In particular, the rural, conservative states with oil and coal production are on the brakes.
The judgment could establish a right trend
Biden promised that the federal authorities would continue to promote environmental and climate protection. However, this has become more difficult, because the current judgment also concerned a fundamental dispute: How far are federal authorities allowed to go in setting standards? The Supreme Court has now sent a signal of reluctance to give the economy more freedom: Congress must describe the powers of the authorities in detail. Otherwise there is a risk that they will make decisions on their own that are actually the responsibility of the people’s representatives, the majority of the court found. The most conservative members of the body would like to go much further: Judge Clarence Thomas, for example, has been asserting for years that Washington actually has almost no competence in the economic sector – in reality only the individual states can enact regulations on this.
The judgment now available, written by the court’s chairman, Chief Justice John Roberts, takes a middle course: it restricts the scope of the federal authorities in general, but is specific enough that the effects are limited to the environmental area for the time being. However, business circles have already started other processes with which they want to get rid of official regulations. For example, lawsuits are also pending against the emission regulations for cars, which were not affected by the current ruling.