Tech

Supreme Court limits EPA to curb power plant emissions | Chicago News

Emissions from a coal-fired power plant are silhouetted on February 1, 2021 against the backdrop of the sunset in Kansas City, Missouri. (AP photo / Charlie Riedel, file)

Washington (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday, which hit the fight against climate change, how the country’s major air pollution control laws can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. I restricted it.

In a 6-3 vote with a majority of conservatives, the Court said the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. rice field.

According to one prominent meteorologist, this decision is a big step in the wrong direction and a “gut punch” in the face of increasing environmental damage caused by climate change and disastrous warnings about the future. Stated.

Court decisions can complicate government plans to combat climate change. Detailed proposals for regulating power plant emissions are planned by the end of the year. Although this decision was specific to the EPA, it was in line with conservative majority skepticism about regulatory power and a message about possible future impacts beyond climate change and air pollution. Sent.

The ruling was a conservative majority backed by three appointed presidents of former President Donald Trump, overturning the right to national abortion, almost 50 years old, expanding gun rights, and major religious rights. Placed an exclamation mark for the court’s term of office. Liberal dissenting opinions everywhere.

President Joe Biden aims to cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of 2010 and to have a emission-free electricity sector by 2035. Power plants account for about 30% of carbon dioxide emissions.

“Reducing carbon dioxide emissions to a level that forces us to move from coal to generate electricity nationwide may be a wise” solution to the crisis of the day, “” John Roberts said. The chief gave his opinion in court.

However, Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to do so and Congress must speak clearly on this subject.

“Determining such scale and outcome depends on the parliament itself, or an agency that acts according to a clear delegation from its representative body,” he wrote.

In dissenting opinion, Judge Elena Kagan wrote that the decision removed the Congressional power parliamentary EPA to address “the most pressing environmental problems of our time.”

Mr. Cagan said the stakes in this case were high. She states: “The court appoints climate policy decision makers, not parliaments or specialized bodies. It can’t be more scary.”

Biden called the ruling “another catastrophic decision aimed at retreating our country” in a statement. This decision risks keeping the air in our country clean and impairing our ability to combat climate change, but I use my legitimate authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis. I will not forgive that. “

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General of West Virginia, who led the legal challenge to the EPA authorities, said: -The generation that was dismissed. “

However, Marshall Shepherd, a professor of meteorology at the University of Georgia and a former president of the American Meteorological Society, said of this decision: come. “

Richard Leves, an environmental expert at NYU School of Law, called the decision “a significant setback for environmental and public health protection.”

But he said in a statement that the EPA still has the authority to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.

EPA spokesman Tim Carroll said authorities are considering the decision. “The EPA is committed to using the full range of existing authorities to protect public health and significantly reduce environmental pollution, which is in line with the growing clean energy economy.” Carroll said.

The court ruled that if Congress wants to empower government agencies to regulate issues of major national importance, Congress must speak specifically.

New York Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the decision would have widespread implications. “The consequences of this decision will spread to the entire federal government, from food and drug regulation to our healthcare system, all of which will endanger the lives of Americans,” Schumaer said.

Some conservative judges have criticized what they see as an unchecked force of the Federal Office.

These concerns were evident in a court order revoking the policies of the two Biden administrations aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19. Last summer, a 6 to 3 conservative majority of courts ended the suspension of peasant evictions over unpaid rent. In January, the same six judges regularly vaccinated or tested large employer workers and blocked the requirement to wear masks at work.

Underlying all these issues is the lack of action from Congress, reflecting the fierce disagreement between parties over the role of federal government.

With respect to the environment, Byden’s signature plan to deal with the climate, a radical social and environmental policy bill known as Buildback Better, is a Republican of Parliament and a conservative Democratic Senator Joe of West Virginia’s Coal State. Almost dead in the united opposition from Manchin.

In a reduced version, Democratic-backed legislation provides tax credits and spending to boost renewables such as wind and solar and significantly increase the number of electric vehicles.

The same day the judge warned that a UN panel report could make the world worse, hungry, poorer and more dangerous in the coming years as the effects of climate change worsen. , I heard the discussion of this case.

The power plant case has a long and complex history, starting with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. The plan would have required the state to reduce emissions from power generation, primarily by shifting away from coal-fired power plants.

But the plan never came into effect. The Supreme Court, which acted in proceedings filed by West Virginia and others, blocked it with a 5-4 vote in 2016, with the majority being conservative.

The plan was put on hold and the court battle over it continued. However, after President Donald Trump took office, the EPA abolished plans for the Obama era. At the time, the agency claimed that it had limited authority to reduce carbon emissions and devised a new plan to significantly reduce the role of the federal government in this matter.

New York, 21 other predominantly Democratic states, the District of Columbia, and some of the largest cities in the United States have filed proceedings over the Trump program. The Federal Court of Appeals in Washington ruled against both the abolition and the new plan, and while the new administration was drafting a new policy, that decision had no effect.

In addition to the extraordinary nature of the High Court’s involvement, the reductions sought by the Obama project by 2030 have already been achieved by the market-led closure of hundreds of coal-fired power plants.

A power plant operator servicing 40 million people has asked the court to maintain the flexibility of the company to reduce emissions while maintaining reliable service. Well-known companies such as Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla also helped the administration.

19 predominantly Republican-led states and coal companies led the Supreme Court battle with a wide range of EPA authorities that regulate carbon emissions.


Supreme Court limits EPA to curb power plant emissions | Chicago News

Source link Supreme Court limits EPA to curb power plant emissions | Chicago News

Related Articles

Back to top button