Against the backdrop of heat records breaking around the world and historic forest fires raging in the west, climate activists and politicians working to aggressively curb greenhouse gas emissions are now facing a new kind of challenge – restrictions issued by US Supreme Court.
Earlier today, the court issued a ruling in West Virginia v. EPA limiting the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions from fossil fuel power plants in a major long-term environmental case. This is classified as a “devastating” result by environmental lawyers, climate scientists and activists. One with far-reaching consequences for the future of the country and the world.
“At this point, for those in high positions to deny the urgency and pledge of the climate crisis is to condemn everyone alive today and for generations to live in a sick and impoverished world,” said Ginger Cassidy, CEO of Rainforest Action. Network.
The Conservative majority of the court voted 6-3 in favor of the leading coal producer in West Virginia, in a case initially challenged by 20 other Republican Attorneys General who sued the EPA to have less regulatory power over existing power plants without explicit permission from Congress on the Clean Air Act. In the ruling, the court’s conservative majority ruled that the Clean Air Act allows nothing but direct regulation of power plants.
“Global climate change is the main environmental challenge today,” said senior lawyer Frank Rambo, who heads the energy program at the Southern Center for Environmental Law. “And the United States is a leading contributor to this worldwide. The ability of our federal government to address our contribution to climate change is what is at stake.
Today’s decision by the radical Supreme Court of Pollution deals a serious blow to @EPA’s authority to fulfill its duty: to protect the environment. In this way, the Court paid homage to the polluters who seek to poison with impunity the air our children breathe and the water they drink.
– Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 30, 2022
The solution is likely to create problems for Joe Biden’s climate goals, which include cleaning up the electricity grid to meet the national target of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035 and zero electricity by 2050.
In a statement, the president responded to the decision: “The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of West Virginia against EPA is another devastating decision, which aims to bring our country back. Although this decision risks damaging our nation’s ability to maintain clean air and fight climate change, I will not resign myself to using my legitimate authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.
EPA also issued a response stating that it was reviewing the court’s ruling: “EPA is committed to using the full range of its existing bodies to protect public health and significantly reduce environmental pollution, which is in line with the growing economy. clean energy.
Sarah Jordan, an assistant professor of environmental life cycle assessments at Johns Hopkins University, said it was important to remember that this decision would not take away the climate momentum in countries that “use their power” to make a change. clean energy.
“What really makes an impact is the ability to bring about change in countries that are there, that have large fossil fuel resources and that are determined to continue to use those technologies that carry those resources,” Jordan said.
Six right-wing extremists from SCOTUS have removed the EPA’s ability to fight climate change by depriving them of the ability to develop an emission ceiling under the Clean Air Act.
This is a crisis of legitimacy. It’s time to put everything on the table. Deadlines for judges. Now.
– RoHana (@RoKhanna) June 30, 2022
But there is an obvious limit to how much can be done without national intervention. “If we think about the overall US portfolio and try to reduce emissions across the country, you can achieve so much without having a national strategy,” said David Konisky, a professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University.
The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that if countries around the world did not aggressively reduce emissions, limiting global warming to 1.5C – compared to pre-industrial levels – would be unattainable. If this threshold is exceeded, the damage to humans and the environment from climate change will become excessively dangerous, affecting almost every aspect of human life, further stimulating mass climate migration and making adaptation more difficult everywhere.
Regulating emissions from power plants is a vital part of climate mitigation, as the energy sector is the second largest polluter on the planet in the United States, accounting for about 25% of national emissions. Koniski now says the EPA will have to return to the “drawing board” to try to come up with a federal program that the court can approve.
Experts, meanwhile, noted that the domino effect of the rapid elimination of national greenhouse gas emissions will fall disproportionately on blacks, browns and indigenous peoples as the worsening climate crisis deepens racial and social divisions.
“There are still so many paths to climate justice, but what we are seeing is a supreme court that I would call ‘Supreme Climate Deniers’ trying to put itself in a decision-making position,” the US chief executive said. of the Climate Action Network, Kia Chatterjee. “This sends a signal that they will want to make it difficult for the federal government to protect people in the communities where the fossil fuel industry currently runs the show.
“Decisions like WV against EPA clearly show how much the system is set against us. The Supreme Court, which is on the side of the fossil fuel industry in terms of the health and safety of its people, is against life and is illegitimate, “wrote Sunrise Movement, a youth climate organization.
The Supreme Court spent the last week despising the vast majority of the population in terms of choice, weapons and climate.
Our job is to be the opposite reaction. In the elections and against the corporations that financed all this. We need to make majorities important.
– Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) June 30, 2022
Climate activists and groups like these are calling on the Biden administration and the president himself to turn to the executive branch to adopt climate justice policies and expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court. The result of this decision is a call for accountability to a part of the federal government that operates largely out of control.
“Any decision that disrupts climate action is outrageous, given that we are already in crisis,” Chatterjee said. “So it’s time for them to find their backbone, find their courage and make the decisions they have to make about the climate crisis.
“And it’s also time to fix this institution.”
Add Comment