Court limits paths to climate goals
President left with few options to cut emissions
WASHINGTON – More than 500 days into his presidency, Joe Biden’s hope for saving the Earth from the most devastating effects of climate change may not be dead.
But it’s not far from it.
A Supreme Court ruling Thursday not only limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate climate pollution by power plants, but also suggests the court is poised to block other efforts by Biden and federal agencies to limit the climate-wrecking fumes emitted by oil, gas and coal.
It’s a blow to Biden’s commitment to slash emissions in the few years scientists say are left to stave off worse and deadlier levels of global warming. And it’s a sign, to Democrats at home and allies abroad, of the dwindling options remaining for Biden to reverse the legacy of President Donald Trump, who mocked the science of climate change. Trump’s three Supreme Court appointees provided half of the affirmative votes in Thursday’s 6-3 ruling.
After the ruling, a veteran Democratic lawmaker acknowledged he saw no hope of Congress producing any meaningful climate legislation, either. The foreign allies whom Biden once spoke of leading to a global clean-power transformation are wondering if the United States can even lead itself.
And in a Houston neighborhood entering hurricane season, a man who had spent four decades advocating for the Black communities, other communities of color and poorer communities hit hardest by pollution and the record heat, cold, floods and storms of climate change reacted to the ruling like many others did Thursday – saying it was all up to Biden now to act – and act in a big way.
“This is real,” said Robert Bullard, an academic who became a pioneer in what became the U.S. environmental justice movement, of the multiplying natural disasters – the kind scientists say are increasingly influenced by the heating atmosphere – wrecking cities on America’s vulnerable Gulf of Mexico.
“Those communities that have been flooded out ... some of those communities still have blue tarps on their houses,” Bullard said. “So I don’t think the Supreme Court and and some of our
elected officials are speaking about the urgency of where we are when it comes to our climate.”
The dismay at the ruling expressed by many among what is a majority of people in America who say they care deeply about climate change reflected this was only the latest setback to Biden’s early promises to slash emissions.
A narrowly divided Congress already handed Biden what’s been the worst climate defeat of his term so far when two Democrats, including coal-state lawmaker Joe Manchin, joined Senate Republicans in refusing to pass Biden’s Build Back Better package.
Climate parts of the legislation were meant to kickstart America’s transformation into a land of electric cars, clean industry and energy-efficient buildings. Biden was able to move forward some smaller parts of his proposal, including electric car chargers.
And this year, in a development as dangerous for Biden’s early climate hopes as the Supreme Court ruling, a global oil and gas supply crunch has sent gas prices pinging off record highs. It’s fueled inflation and voter anger against Biden, and potentially other Democrats.
The energy shortfall left Biden scrambling for additional oil and gas. It’s also left it unclear whether he still feels he has the political capital to lead the U.S. move to renewable energy as decisively as he promised as a candiclimate
date and in his first months in office.
The ruling left policy experts, lawmakers and ordinary people saying Biden, Democrats and climate-minded Republicans still have some routes left to push through climate efforts.
One is ambitious, shrewd executive action – if Biden dares – to push through carefully targeted emission-cutting steps.
A second is climate action by California and the other blue states that earlier swung into action to challenge Trump’s climate rollbacks in court.
A third option is a pitch that Biden and Democrats are throwing to voters more and more – elect enough Democrats in the midterms to allow Congress to pass laws thwarting rollbacks by conservatives, in Congress and on the Supreme Court.
Biden has pledged to cut the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade and to have an emissions-free power sector by 2035.
Biden offered no guarantees of success in his comments after the court ruling.
“While this decision risks damaging our nation’s ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis,” he said in a statement.
His team would “find ways that we can, under federal law, continue protecting Americans” from pollution and
change, he said.
The Biden administration can still do a strong rule on carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions generally, and it ought to do it fast, said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-rhode Island.
As it is, “there’s no easy fix from Congress from this mess,” Whitehouse said, blaming past court rulings on political donations for “the big, dark polluter money” he said holds sway in politics now.
The Supreme Court ruling came as Biden was savoring a successful gathering with NATO allies, who have rallied behind the U.S. in confronting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. After Biden’s early proclamations in summits at the outset of his term that “America is back!,” the setback in the Supreme Court underscored to allies how vulnerable the U.S. president remains on the domestic front, including when it comes to fulfilling climate commitments.
As the ruling was released, Biden envoy John Kerry was flying out after an oceans conference in Portugal, still working for global and country-bycountry commitments to cut emissions.
The domestic climate setbacks have helped slow early global momentum for climate breakthroughs. They’ve weakened U.S. leverage as Kerry presses countries including China to swing away from coal and other damaging fossil fuels – something Biden had pledged the U.S. would lead on by example.