The Supreme Court decided on Thursday to limit the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to strictly regulate emissions from power plants, a measure that marks a major setback in the fight against the climate crisis.
In a 6-3 opinion on ideological lines, the nation’s highest court ruled in West Virginia v. EPA that the federal agency does not have the authority to regulate the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. The case comes from former President Obama’s clean energy plan, which would have enforced mandates on how many emissions power plants could emit. The plan was never officially implemented, as it faced legal challenges and was withdrawn under the Trump administration.
The court’s opinion states that when it comes to limiting carbon dioxide emissions, “it is not plausible that Congress would give the EPA the authority to adopt this regulatory scheme on its own.” He also said a “decision of such magnitude and consequences” should fall to Congress.
In a statement, President Biden called it a “devastating decision” that “runs the risk of damaging our nation’s ability to keep the air clean and fight climate change.”
He added: “I will not give in to using my legal authorities to protect public health and deal with the climate crisis.”
Some Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, applauded the decision, but supporters of climate action quickly condemned it.
Climate behavior and health scientist Sweta Chakraborty, chair of climate solutions group We Don’t Have Time, told CBS News that the court “used one of the EPA’s most important tools.”
“We are talking about an increase in air pollution that has impacts on human health, the environment and, in general, our future trajectory towards global warming, from which we must desperately deviate. “He said, and later added,” The interests of fossil fuels are behind. This case claiming victory today takes us back 50 years until Big Oil and other corporations could pump deadly air pollution and ‘water without any limit’.
And it’s not just about carbon emissions. The Supreme Court decision also sets a “dangerous precedent” that other EPA regulations can be ruled out, he said.
“This really goes against all the evidence and science we know that requires more regulation,” Chakraborty said. “Having that kind of sentence actually means … that we can actually unabatedly support the pollution of our communities in the United States. And that’s an extremely dangerous path to take down.”
A “real setback” in the fight against climate change
Power plants and chimneys are “one of the largest sources” of national and global climate pollution, according to Environmental Defense Attorney General Vickie Patton. This is what the regulations in question intended to address in this case.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling undermines the EPA’s authority to protect people from air pollution from chimneys at a time when all the evidence shows that we need to act very urgently,” he said Thursday. . “This is a judicial excess.”
While the case was still under review by the Supreme Court, Patton told CBS News, the EPA was “very clear” that any regulations would come from a clean table and involve all stakeholders in developing standards for pollution. “Some” electric companies also expressed support for the EPA authority, as well as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, he said.
The industrial sector, according to the EPA, accounts for 24% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, most of which come from the combustion of fossil fuels. Greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere, raising global temperatures.
The United Nations and scientists around the world have warned for years that not significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions will result in “extreme” and “unprecedented” impacts around the world, including more catastrophic damage. by storms, devastating droughts and threats to health and health. global economy.
“Decisions like today’s … make it difficult to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, for a healthy and livable planet,” said Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the UN secretary general, in a statement. CBS News correspondent Pamela Falk. “But we must also remember that an emergency as global as climate change requires a global response, and the actions of a single nation should not and cannot do or break if we achieve our climate goals.”
A danger to human health
The UN has warned that the world must stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming, compared to pre-industrial levels, to minimize the worst impacts of climate change. Doing so is critical, Chakraborty said, as “human health and global warming are inextricably linked.”
“If we really talk about this in terms of impacts on human health, the more we increase the temperature of the planet, the more we will also increase air pollution, which has detrimental negative consequences for health,” he said, and he added: “those who are most likely to experience it in the first place, our vulnerable communities.”
A 2021 study found that air pollution from fossil fuels is responsible for causing nearly 1 in 5 deaths worldwide each year. This year, the World Health Organization found that 99% of the world breathes poor quality air, mostly due to fossil fuel emissions.
In the U.S., the impacts of climate change have historically affected low-income communities and people of color. Industrial facilities are often found in these areas, polluting the air and causing health problems to people living nearby.
In addition to experiencing poorer air quality, people in these areas are also more likely to suffer from the weight of higher global temperatures, Chakraborty said. And an increase in fossil fuel emissions in the absence of federal regulation will only amplify those conditions.
“These districts that have been marked in red, on average, experience temperatures as low as a few degrees to five or six degrees than their richer communities. And that is dangerous to human health,” he said. “… These communities will continue to suffer. We are seeing a continuing legacy of environmental racism with the Supreme Court decision.”
For Michele Roberts, co-ordinator of the Alliance for Environmental Justice and Health for Chemical Policy Reform, this is an issue that affects us. CBS News spoke to her while she was with her family in Wilmington, Delaware, where people of color have long felt the effects of lack of weather resistance.
Housing segregation and red boundaries have caused communities with predominantly black and brown populations to suffer from flooding and other climate and health-related problems. Without proper measures to reduce the rise in temperatures, these problems will only increase.
“For me, as a black woman, after Freddie Gray and‘ I Can’t Breathe ’and Black Lives Matter and all that stuff, I hope this is the push this whole country needs,” she said of the Supreme. The court’s decision. “My dad died a week ago knowing these things were happening. My dad was 87 and he said,‘ Now it’s your turn. ’But he said,‘ The good news is that if you all have a sense of working together, you can do it “.
“Self-regulation does not exist”
Without federal oversight, many experts have little faith that industries will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Chakraborty said the efforts being made to do so are “too few and too far away”.
“Self-regulation does not exist in the fossil fuel industry,” he said. “… I think it’s very clear that the main motivation for oil and gas executives is to keep pocketing themselves to continue to get shareholder support so that conservatives in Congress can introduce legislation that continues to allow oil and gas drilling “.
The only way to make sure emissions are reduced is to enforce strict regulations, Chakraborty said, noting that renewed policies, including clean energy tax deductions and the end of oil and gas subsidies , are essential to deal with the crisis.
“With this ruling coming out of the Supreme Court, we will actually support dirty energy again … We are allowing freedom for all,” he said. “And it couldn’t be a worse time. We’re in a climate emergency.”
Patton said the response requires “all hands on deck,” especially with regard to the Biden administration’s plans and the president’s promise to halve climate pollution by 2030.
“This is the commitment by which we all have an interest in working, saving lives and building a stronger clean energy economy for all,” he said.
Roberts said he expects the court’s setback to be an “additional push” for change.
“We came together because of the failures and inconsistencies with the climate and with climate policies that didn’t really affect everyone,” he said. “… After decisions like this, now is the time to organize, educate, mobilize and act. And that’s what we’re willing to do.”
More by Li Cohen
Le Cohen is a social media producer and trend reporter for CBS News, focusing on social justice issues.