By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
The US Supreme Court struck a huge blow to efforts to fight climate changing, President Biden vowed to press forward, calling it a decision that “risks damaging our nation’s ability to keep our air clean.”
Republicans cheered the ruling, with Senator Mitch McConnell saying it limited the power of “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.”
The 6-3 Court majority stripped the E.P.A. of “the power to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.” Bden called it another “devasting decision” one “that aims to take our country backwards.” He vowed to take action even as the court limited his ability to act, adding: “We cannot and will not ignore the danger to public health and existential threat the climate crisis poses.”
“The science confirms what we all see with our own eyes — the wildfires, droughts, 
extreme heat, and intense storms are endangering our lives and livelihoods,” President Biden said. “I will take action. My administration will continue using lawful executive authority, including the EPA’s legally-upheld authorities, to keep our air clean, protect public health, and tackle the climate crisis.”
Governor Newsom released a statement, “The Supreme Court sided with the fossil fuel industry, kneecapping the federal government’s basic ability to tackle climate change. Today’s ruling makes it even more imperative that California and other states succeed in our efforts to combat the climate crisis.”
He said, “While the court has once again turned back the clock, California refuses to go backward – we’re just getting started. California will remain the tentpole for this movement with record investments and aggressive policies to reduce pollution, to protect people from extreme weather, and to leave our children and grandchildren a world that’s better off than we found it.”
This is a huge blow – after the ruling, the EPA will have far less ability to limit CO2 from power plants which are a major source of GHG emissions in this country at a time when the planet is experiencing a catastrophic warming.
The NY Times said yesterday, “It’s one in a series of setbacks for Mr. Biden, who came into office with the most ambitious climate agenda of any president, pledging to the rest of the world that the United States, the world’s largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, would cut that pollution in half by the end of the decade.”
How bad? Let’s put it this way, while everyone has focused on the abortion issue – and rightly so – this one might be the most catastrophic in a global sense.
“At this point I don’t see any way to hit the kind of targets they laid out,” said David G. Victor, an expert in climate policy at the University of California, San Diego, in an interview with the NY Times.
Scientists believe that the US must hit the targets that President Biden has laid out in order to limit the average temperature increase to 2.7 degree Fahrenheit compared to pre-Industrial Revolution averages.
Scientists have said, “That is the threshold beyond which the likelihood significantly increases of catastrophic impacts such as deadly heat waves, drought, wildfire and storms.”
Already the planet has warmed by 1.1 degree Celsius, and we have seen the impact in terms of heat waves, drought, wife, and severe storms.
The ruling is compounded by the fact that Congress has failed to act on climate change.
The Times notes, “The centerpiece of the president’s climate plan, legislation to replace coal and gas-fired power plants with wind, solar and nuclear energy, was deleted from a major domestic policy bill last fall after objections from Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia. Mr. Manchin, who has personal financial ties to the coal industry, has been able to single-handedly set the limits of Mr. Biden’s legislative ambitions as the key swing vote in an evenly divided Senate.”
Biden had been able to circumvent that blockage “by directing the E.P.A. to craft tough new limits on tailpipe emissions to speed up adoption of electric vehicles. But those rules are already under legal assault in lower courts by many of the same plaintiffs who were victorious in this week’s Supreme Court case.”
“The judicial branch and the legislative branch are seriously hindering Joe Biden’s ability to get the job done on climate,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard, who served on Mr. Biden’s E.P.A. transition team. “A lot of the optimism that everyone had a year ago is being replaced by pessimism. They’re running out of options right now.”
The Biden administration believes that the US could meet its targets by cobbling together a mix of executive actions.
“Ambitious climate action presents a singular opportunity to ensure U.S. global competitiveness, create jobs, lower costs for families, and protect people’s health and well being, especially those who’ve long suffered the burden of inaction,” Michael S. Regan, the E.P.A. administrator, said in a statement. “E.P.A. will move forward with lawfully setting and implementing environmental standards that meet our obligation to protect all people and all communities from environmental harm.”
The Times points out that the SCOTUS ruling did leave intact “E.P.A.’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions but blocked any attempt by the agency to write regulations so broad that they force the closure of coal-fired plants, which generate the most carbon dioxide, or compel utilities to switch from fossil fuels to wind, solar and other clean sources.”
Meanwhile the EPA will still issue tougher regulations to control methane.
“Those air pollution rules will have co-benefits — as they are being enforced, they will squeeze out some CO2 pollution,” said Leah Stokes, a professor of environmental policy at the University of Santa Barbara, California, who has advised congressional Democrats on climate legislation. “It wouldn’t be the same amount. Every time we take a tool off the table we’re in a worse position.”
A good portion of the country’s leadership doesn’t seem to care – even as the impact of climate change becomes more and more evident with each passing year.
Coming from the guy who wanted to give car owners $400 per car – up to $800 per person.
Fortunately, the legislature didn’t go along with it.
Yeah they are giving everyone $1000 instead.
The details are more complicated than that, and it’s now based upon income (rather than vehicle ownership).
I don’t think the revised proposal is a good idea, either. But, it’s better than Newsom’s proposal. Not sure if this is the “final” version:
https://www.kcra.com/article/california-governor-lawmakers-near-deal-gas-tax-rebate/40413642
Interestingly-enough, it’s still being referred to as relief from high gas prices.
I’d suggest that they help cities across California with their unfunded liabilities, instead. But, I guess that’s not as “popular” of an idea.
That would defeat the purpose of cushioning the blow against consumers
Those same consumers are the ones who will ultimately have to pay that bill, unless they start cutting-back pensions/medical cost payments.
In any case, encouraging car ownership (up to 2 cars) is not helping with climate change (and sends a really poor message). In this case, the legislature recognized this.
We could also discuss the state’s failure to reign-in sprawl (in regard to climate change). In fact, it’s not even on their radar.
Much easier for Newsom and others to try to blame the Supreme Court for all of the problems, while scoring/reinforcing political points with those who already support them in the first place.
Of course, the “other side” is even worse, regarding this issue.
Could be that our only hope is Elon’s rocketship to Mars. (And that planet could use some global warming, so bring your SUV.)
Key word: “ultimately.” I would add, “possibly.” In other words, no immediate economic stimulus in an election year where the economy is going south.
I’m not sure which program you’re referring to because you get a semi annual rebate of GHG allowance sales revenues through PG&E. There is a one time rebate related to gasoline prices (which is an oil company problem–check the prices in Texas). It cushions the blow on consumers based on their ability to pay those prices.
https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/tax-compliance/news/21272636/most-californians-to-receive-up-to-1050-in-gas-rebate-checks
The Clean Power Plan was flawed in its original incarnation which was created to accommodate utility industry objections that individual plant limits would be too harsh. Well, the Supreme Court just gave the EPA the excuse for imposing the more direct and effective standards that it wanted to impose originally. Those are GHG emissions standards for individual plants. Those standards can be ramped down over time in a manner that will require coal plants to first start co-firing other fuels (e.g. gas or biomass), eventually phasing those out completely, and then even fully eliminating gas because the steam boilers aren’t as efficient as the current technology combined cycle turbines. Similarly, gas plants could be ramped down into retirement as well. What’s likely missing will be the opportunity to buy emission offsets from renewables and other sources which would let those plants run longer (as is in the Acid Rain Program that controls sulfur oxides). This could well be a pyrrhic victory that accelerates immolation for the coal states that brought the suit. I don’t think this decision will have a deleterious effect once the EPA redirects itself.
The impression I get is that the court majority ruled that the EPA doesn’t have that authority unless it is expressly allowed to do so by Congress. I could be wrong, obviously, as these rulings are subject to interpretation. But the whole goal of the Federalist Society in working toward this court majority was to reduce the regulatory powers of the federal government. I’d guess that any EPA regs that seek to circumvent this will also be challenged and the results are quite predictable. I don’t think this problem can be solved without a change in the makeup of the court.
Don,
Here’s more on this. The 2007 court precedent that allows the EPA to regulate GHG emissions remains in place. Here’s an article that goes into this further.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/supreme-court-epa-GHG-carbon-power-plant/626456/
EPA retains tools to cut power sector GHG emissions despite Supreme Court curbing its authority: attorneys
Foolish statements, all…
The old ‘adage’, was “think globally, act locally”… as to climate change, as it relates to the US, particularly CA, it should be “act globally, think locally”… in CA, our climate is out of our hands… the fact is, it is a global issue… if everyone in Davis, CA, and/or US went carbon-neutral, zero-emission, etc., does anyone actually think that would change things one scintilla? Really? If so, study science, seek therapy…
Climate change is a given… ask the dinosaurs who lived in a much warmer, more humid environment… ask the wooly mammoths who lived in a much colder environment… climate change is like gravity… real… how much we can do about it, figuring the ’causes’, is speculative… should we not exacerbate it? Surely… can we ‘solve it’? I think not… can we adapt to it? Yeah, we better deal with it…
We don’t know what we don’t know… true statement… we have maybe 300 years of accurate/semi-accurate climate data, and going back 10-200,000 years (sometimes, millions of years), have some evidence that we extrapolate data from… a ‘sliver’ of earth history… it could be, “this, like a kidney stone, will pass”… it could be that “this is the apocalypse”… it could be it is neither… I don’t pretend to know, but I do not favor (am highly skeptical of) drastic measures, particularly locally… that would just be knee-jerk foolishness…
My 2 cents…
Some of the ‘economic stimuli’ proposed, enacted/proposed, may well drive the economy even further ‘south’… as in rectally… we have actually seen signs of that… be careful what you ask for… think ‘two-edged sword’… think ‘collateral damages’… think…
Inflation is an ‘unsprayed female dog’ (five letter word, starts with a “b”)… hits the folk on the lower end of the economy, the worst… also, those on ‘fixed income’… be careful what you ask for… just might happen, with ‘unintended consequences’… which might not fit with your “intent”…