Sustainable Future
Kevin Trenberth provides an insider’s view on the latest US Supreme Court ruling limiting the power of government agencies to address carbon emissions
Comments: The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of environmental regulators to restrict carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is, at best, strange and absurd to me.
As an expert on the science of climate change, I have seen these types of lawsuits up close. I was involved in the early stages of this case and provided expert information to the lower court that had just been dominated by the Supreme Court.
What we are seeing is the success of a very well-funded minority with a strong anti-regulatory agenda. It has been eight months since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a scientific report telling the world that climate change has been widespread, rapid, intensifying and unprecedented for thousands of years.
“Unless there is an immediate, rapid and large-scale reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the limitation of heating to 1.5 ° C will be out of reach,” the panel said, noting that “it is undeniable that human activities are causing climate change”.
No rapid, large-scale reduction in carbon dioxide and methane emissions is taking place, despite the promises of many countries, including New Zealand, to make cuts and even reach “just zero” by 2050 or shortly thereafter.
What we are seeing is the success of a very well-funded minority with a strong anti-regulatory agenda.
Indeed, a 1.5 ° C increase in global average surface temperatures since pre-industrial times has been guaranteed. We are at 1.1 ° C, and at current rates, the Paris Agreement’s target of 1.5 ° C will succeed in around 2032. Major advances in mitigation of emissions may slow it down a bit, but it will happen.
Unfortunately, some countries have recently started going in the wrong direction over emissions, perhaps in part due to the disruption of energy supplies associated with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The US, which is responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions over history than any other country, has made very limited progress despite strong efforts by President Joe Biden’s administration. The Republican Party’s control of Congress is a major roadblock.
Now the Supreme Court has limited the regulatory capabilities of the Environmental Protection Agency. As I say, the verdict was strange at best.
The case arose from the launch of a Clean Power Plan when Barack Obama was in the White House. It is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a set of stricter pollution standards, especially for coal-fired power plants.
States had to implement the plan, which was remarkably flexible. Each state had its own carbon target. The objectives were more efficient coal plants, efficient use of gas plants, increased renewable energy and improved efficiency. When the plan was justified, the Environmental Protection Agency also calculated the health benefits of reducing smoke-forming pollutants.
The Clean Power Plan was never implemented, although reductions in emissions did occur.
When President Donald Trump’s environmental protection agency decided to repeal those standards, I contributed to the arguments against it. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the Trump rule that effectively destroyed the plan.
In the latest development, the Supreme Court has taken up the appeal against this decision even though the Clean Power Plan was not in place.
When legislation is passed, any regulations cannot anticipate the future and the changes in society and conditions, such as climate change. The retrospective non-progressive Supreme Court view also applies to women’s rights, and weapons. In the latest ruling, it is found that the EPA did not even have the authority to draw up the Clean Power Plan. The arguments were largely anti-regulatory and, in my opinion, absurd.
The decision is designed to bind the hands of EPA scientists to fight pollution and to protect air, water and our families from the climate crisis.
Judge Elena Kagan, who wrote a dissent for the three Liberal judges in the decision issued on June 30, said: “Whatever this court knows, it has no idea how to address climate change. “And let’s say the obvious: The interests here are high. Yet today, the court is preventing a congressional-authorized agency action to limit power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.”
Thus, for the time being, it further binds the hands of the Biden administration. A key question is whether the Democrats can secure enough seats in the November congressional elections to make changes.
Without U.S. leadership to reduce emissions, climate change will continue to appear, and we will get an even more extreme version of climate change across weather, sea levels, heat waves and wildfires. Beware!