Amid records of breaking heat around the world and historic forest fires in the west, climate activists and policymakers working to aggressively curb greenhouse gas emissions face off now to a new kind of challenge: the restrictions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Today, the court issued a ruling in West Virginia against the EPA limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate emissions from fossil fuel power plants, in a major environmental case with far-reaching impacts. This has been classified as a “devastating” result by both environmental lawyers, climate scientists and activists. One with far-reaching implications for the future of the country and the world.
“At this point, for those in positions of high power to deny the urgency and bet of the climate crisis is to condemn all who live today and generations to come to life in a sick and impoverished world,” Ginger said Cassady, executive director of Rainforest Action Network.
The court’s conservative majority voted 6-3 in favor of West Virginia’s top coal producer, in a lawsuit with challenges initially filed by 20 other Republican attorneys general, who sued the EPA for less regulatory power over power plants. existing power plants without express authorization from Congress. under the Clean Air Act. In the ruling, the conservative super-majority of the court determined that the Clean Air Act authorizes nothing more than direct regulation of power plants.
“Global climate change is the underlying environmental challenge of this era,” said senior attorney Frank Rambo, who runs the energy program at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “And the US is the main contributor to this globally. What is at stake is the ability of our federal government to control our contribution to climate change.”
Today’s ruling by a radical Supreme Court in favor of pollution is a severe blow to the @ EPA’s authority to fulfill its duty: to protect the environment. In doing so, the Court has bowed to the polluters who seek to poison the air our children breathe and the water they drink with impunity.
– Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 30, 2022
The ruling is likely to pose problems for Joe Biden’s climate goals, which include cleaning up the electricity grid to achieve the national target of 100% carbon-free electricity in 2035 and zero net in 2050.
In a statement, the president responded to the ruling: “The Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia against the EPA is another devastating decision that seeks to bring our country back. Although that decision runs the risk. of damaging our nation’s ability to keep the air clean and fight climate change, I will not give in to using my legal authorities to protect public health and deal with the climate crisis. “
The EPA also issued a response saying they are reviewing the court’s decision: “The EPA is committed to using the full scope of its existing authorities to protect public health and significantly reduce environmental pollution, which is consistent. with the growing clean energy economy. “
Sarah Jordaan, an assistant professor who researches environmental life cycle assessments at Johns Hopkins University, said it’s important to remember that this sentence will not take away the climate momentum from states that “use their power” to make the shift toward clean energy.
“What really affects is the ability to apply change to states that have large fossil fuel resources and are determined to continue using the technologies that provide those resources,” Jordaan said.
Six right-wing extremists in SCOTUS have dismantled the EPA’s ability to fight climate change by removing its ability to draw up emission limits based on the Clean Air Act.
This is a crisis of legitimacy. It’s time to put it all on the table. Limits of mandate of judges. See.
– Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) June 30, 2022
But there is an obvious limit to how much can be done without national intervention. “If we think about the total U.S. portfolio and try to reduce emissions across the country, there’s only so much you can achieve without having a national strategy,” said David Konisky, a professor of public and environmental affairs at the University of Indiana.
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that unless countries around the world aggressively reduce emissions, limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (compared to pre-industrial levels) will be out of reach. the scope. If this threshold is exceeded, the human and environmental damage of climate change will become excessively dangerous, affecting almost every aspect of human life, further driving mass climate migration and making adaptation everywhere increasingly difficult. .
Regulating emissions from power plants is a vital part of climate mitigation, as the electricity sector is the second largest pollutant for global warming in the United States, accounting for about 25% of emissions nationals. Now Konisky says the EPA will have to go back to the “drawing board” to try to come up with a federal program that the court can approve.
Meanwhile, experts noted that the domino effect of not quickly eliminating domestic greenhouse gas emissions will fall disproportionately on black, brown and indigenous communities, as the worsening climate crisis deepens racial divisions. and social.
“There are still many paths to climate justice, but what we are seeing is a supreme court, that is, I would call them ‘supreme climate deniers,’ who are trying to put themselves in a decision-making position,” he said. say the US. Keya Chatterjee, executive director of the Climate Action Network. “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 is doing the show right now.”
“Decisions like WV v. EPA make it clear how manipulated the system is against us. A supreme court that supports the fossil fuel industry for the health and safety of its people is anti-life and illegitimate.” , wrote Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate organization.
The Supreme Court spent the last week disregarding the large popular majorities in election, weapons and climate.
Our job is to be the reaction. At the polls, and against the corporations that financed all this. We need to make majorities matter.
– Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) June 30, 2022
Climate activists and groups like these are urging the Biden administration and the president himself to turn to the executive branch to enact climate justice policies and expand the number of seats in the supreme court. The result of this ruling is a call for accountability from a section of the federal government that is operating out of control.
“Any decision to disrupt 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 guts and make the decisions they need about the climate crisis.
“And it’s also time for them to fix this institution.”