The Supreme Court has taken back some powers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allow it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The court ruled that the EPA cannot reduce emissions for the entire energy sector. With this, he went into the hands of several Republican-controlled states AmericaLike Texas and Kentucky.
America. The Supreme Court limits the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency
The lawsuit was brought by 19 states, mostly Republicans, and big coal companies. They were led by West Virginia, the second largest producer Coal In the US in all states. The topic arose out of concerns that the energy sector would be forced to move away from coal, which, in their view, would result in significant economic costs. Applicants believe that the federal agency does not have the authority to regulate emissions for entire states.
The evidence in the case is interesting because it is based on a plan from Barack Obama’s presidency that was not only abandoned, but never implemented. 19 states wanted to challenge the regulations, so never before. But the ruling came just as the EPA was preparing New Regulations in this section.
The court’s decision does not deprive the Environmental Protection Agency of the opportunity to implement such regulations in the future, but it would require the express approval of Congress, and in such cases, members of Congress have not yet given their approval.
The Supreme Court voted for such a ruling by a majority of 6:3, while three liberal justices dissented. One of them, Elena Kagan, in her opinion, all these technical decisions are made by politicians, who do not need to understand them. According to him, specialists, including specialized federal agencies, are responsible for such decisions. “The court is appointing itself — instead of Congress or an expert agency — as the decision-maker on climate policy. I can’t imagine much worse. items“- she wrote.
The President also issued a statement. He called the case “another disastrous decision aimed at taking our country back.” He also pledged that he would “not compromise the use of my lawful authority to protect public health and combat the climate crisis.”
Joe Biden’s climate ambitions are in jeopardy
Commentators insist the ruling could limit the White House administration’s abilities to address environmental and climate standards and regulations and other issues beyond. Achieving the ambitious emissions target may be difficult for the president.
Joe Biden The US wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade and have the entire energy sector become carbon neutral by 2035. The 19 states that brought the case to the Supreme Court in 2018 accounted for 44 percent. US greenhouse gas emissions. Power plants are responsible for about 30 percent. Emission of carbon dioxide. The United States is the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world (after China), accounting for about 14 percent. All global greenhouse gas emissions.
Joe Biden has made the fight to stop climate change very high since the beginning of his presidency. Already on his first day in office, he rejoined the Paris Agreement of 2015, from which the US removed Donald Trump.
A United Nations spokesperson commented on the US Supreme Court ruling. Stephane Dujarric said, “Failure in our fight against climate change when we are already far from reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement.” The agreement assumes that global temperature rise will be halted at 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and about 1.1 percent. We have already “done” this.
Dujarric added at the same time: “But we must also remember that a global natural emergency like climate change requires a global response, and that the actions of one country cannot and should not affect whether we achieve our climate goals.”
“Twitter’s irretrievable researcher. An amateur social media lawyer. Award-winning music expert. Became an addict. Easily lethargic.”