The Court vs. the climate

The Supreme Court has made it harder for the country to fight the ravages of climate change.

In a 6-to-3 decision yesterday, the court limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to prevent power plants from releasing climate-warming pollution. The court ruled that Congress had not empowered the agency to issue the broad-based regulations that many climate experts believe could make a big difference — the kind of regulations many officials in the Biden administration would have liked to implement.

Today’s newsletter will explain to you what the decision means — as well as clarify what it doesn’t mean (because some early comments exaggerated the significance of the decision). The bottom line is that the ruling is important, but it doesn’t rule out the Biden administration’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

Amy Westervelt, a climate journalist, summed up the decision by writing: “Not good, but not as bad as it could have been. It’s quite narrow.” Romany Webb of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University called the ruling “a blow, but it’s nowhere near the worst-case scenario.”

The problem, many scientists say, is that climate change poses such a huge threat to the world — and the need to slow the rate of warming is so urgent — that any statement that makes the task more difficult is worrisome. Extreme storms, heat waves, droughts and forest fires are already becoming more frequent. Some species are threatened with extinction. Glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising.

Yet in recent years, the US has made only modest progress in combating climate change through federal policy. The Trump administration largely denied the issue and reversed the Obama administration’s policies designed to slow global warming. The Biden administration has failed to meet its ambitious climate agenda due to unified Republican opposition and Democratic power struggles. Now the Supreme Court has also made the job harder.

The Biden administration had hoped to enact a major rule requiring electric utilities to cut carbon dioxide emissions, essentially forcing them to replace coal and gas-fired plants with clean forms of electricity, such as wind, solar and nuclear power. . The judges ruled that when Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, it had no intention of giving the EPA such broad authority.

The EPA can still regulate power plants after the ruling, but more strictly than before: For example, the agency can push power plants to become more efficient. “The way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants is to shut down the power plants — and replace them with something cleaner,” said my colleague Coral Davenport. “And that’s off the table.”

After yesterday, other industries appear to be involved in the EPA’s key policy tools. The agency may still regulate vehicular greenhouse gases, the largest source of such emissions in the country, although the ruling and the potential for future lawsuits could make the agency more cautious than it would otherwise be.

On Twitter, Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert at Columbia University, mentioned other ways government agencies can continue to address climate change, including: federal rules that apply to newly built power plants; federal rules on oil and gas production spills; state and local rules in many areas; and private sector efforts to become more energy efficient, often subsidized by the government.

“One battle is lost (not surprising, given this Supreme Court),” wrote Gerrard, “but the war on climate change continues.”

The ruling is the latest sign that the Republican Party is not concerned about climate change. The six majority judges were all Republican appointees; the three dissenters were all Democratic appointees.

Adam Liptak, The Times Supreme Court correspondent, wrote: “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, only briefly hinted at the damage caused by climate change. Judge Elena Kagan began her dissent with a lengthy passage describing the devastation of the planet, including hurricanes, floods, famines, coastal erosion, mass migration and political crises.

The math just got harder. This decision made it less likely that the US would meet the climate goals set by Biden. And if the US misses its targets, the world will likely miss its target, as The Times’ Climate Forward newsletter explains. (Register here.)

ModernLove: Could he stop flirting with men for $100 when his mom was around?

A classic from the time: A checklist for maintaining your home.

Advice from Wirecutter: Campfire cooking tips.

Life lived: As the face of the Hells Angels, Sonny Barger turned the motorcycle club into a global phenomenon and an emblem of West Coast rebellion. He died at the age of 83.

A programming note: This week we’re introducing a new section in this newsletter – a sports section, written by the staff at The Athletic.

An NBA superstar wants: Kevin Durant yesterday asked to be traded from the Brooklyn Nets, a new storyline to combine with the competition’s free agency period kicking off. Where could Durant land? Here are the possible trade destinations.

UCLA and USC sow chaos: Two Pac-12 Pillars depart for the Big Ten. It’s a move that shakes the foundation of college football. Is the sport now limited to just two power conferences?

Marla Hooch can still rake: It’s been 30 years since she hit home runs for the Rockford Peaches in “A League of Their Own.” Turns out the actress Megan Cavanagh, now 61, can still hit them.

The Athletic, a New York Times company, is a subscription publication that provides in-depth, personalized sports coverage. More information about The Athletic†

Maybe not all shows need a second season, but many are getting one anyway. “The philosophy today is that if you… dog give people more of what they liked, then don’t waste time thinking or you? should‘ writes the TV critic James Poniewozik.

“Only Murders in the Building,” which told a full story in the first season, returned this week. Other seemingly complete shows have also returned: “Big Little Lies”, “The Flight Attendant”, “Russian Doll”. The second season of “Only Murders” still delivers, even if it lacks originality, writes James.

Yesterday’s Spelling Bee pangram was shippable† Here’s today’s puzzle.

Here’s today’s mini crossword, and a clue: Push (himself) (five letters).

And here’s today’s Wordle. Then use our bot to get better.

Thank you for spending part of your morning at The Times. See you tomorrow. – David

PS Nice choice of reading material, Mr President (from the G7 meeting in Germany):