ROUNDUP / Hrde for Biden’s climate agenda: court marks the boundaries of environmental agencies | News

WASHINGTON (dpa-AFX) – Joe Biden defeat: The US Supreme Court dealt another major blow to the US President with its climate policy decision. The Supreme Court ruled in Washington on Thursday that far-reaching laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions exceed the powers of the US environmental protection agency EPA. The background to this is the complaint of the coal lobby. With the present decision, it will be very difficult for the US to meet its climate goals. Even the United Nations described this verdict as “a failure in our fight against climate change.”

About a week ago, the court, with its conservative majority, triggered a political earthquake rejecting abortion rights. Biden also called the climate policy decision “devastating”. You’re going to roll back the country. The court is on the side of special interests, the US president said. The public health and existential threats posed by the climate crisis will not be ignored. He said he will work with states and cities to pass laws that can cope with the pressures of action in the wake of dramatic global warming.

The now settled case began with a dispute over EP’s powers to force plants to shut down environment pollution reduce. In the meantime, however, it is more about how much power should and should have federal agencies that, like the EPA, are subordinate to the government. Until now, Biden has been able to try to regulate environmental pollution through such federal agencies. Now it is more difficult.

As one of the first official actions, Biden ordered the United States to return to the international climate agreement. Accordingly, the United States should generate carbon-free electricity by 2035 and reduce CO2 emissions to net zero by 2050 at the latest. He also announced that by 2030 he would like to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases harmful to the climate in the USA by at least half compared to 2005. The problem, however, is achieving these goals.

The US Congress has so far dealt little with the issue of climate change and has delegated powers to authorities with specialist knowledge. Biden’s large social and climate package has also been blocked in the Senate and is on hold. The measures included in the package, including investments in clean energy, subsidies for electric cars and energy renovation, should significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help the United States meet the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

According to conservative judge John Roberts, a reasonable solution would be to tighten the requirements for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in order to burn less carbon as a result. It is unlikely, however, that Congress would give an environmental agency such power. “The decision of such weight and effect rests with Congress itself or any agency operating under the express direction of this representative body.”

Three judges who are considered liberals voted against the conservative majority. “The court appoints itself – not Congress or the relevant agency – as the climate policy maker. I can’t think of a lot more scary, ”wrote judge Elena Kagan.

The current Supreme Court case is “the result of a coordinated multi-year strategy” by Republican attorneys general, conservative law officials and their financiers to undermine the executive’s ability to fight global warming, the New York Times said earlier. written. The plaintiffs, some of which are related to the oil and coal industry, wanted to limit the so-called administrative state.

The verdict ends the memorable session of the Supreme Court. The recent decisions are not surprising, often in favor of conservative reasons – the then US president Donald Trump pushed the Supreme Court far to the right with its personnel decisions. The court has repeatedly sided with religious plaintiffs or extended the gun law.

At the end of the present period, at the request of President Biden, Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first black woman in American history to be sworn in as a judge of the Supreme Court. He replaces the retiring liberal Stephen Breyer. It doesn’t change anything for the majority in court.

Far-reaching decisions are expected again from autumn. For example, a court hears an electoral suit over whether states can declare laws that courts previously ruled unconstitutional. First of all, it concerns the so-called gerrymandering, i.e. a political practice of both dominant parties, consisting in manipulating the boundaries of constituencies for their own benefit. / Nau / DP / men

Leave a Comment