Legal setback on climate action
This nation’s getting a stunning setback on the road toward clean energy. The U. S. Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of halting an Obama initiative to curb coal- fired power emissions — a major source of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
The action embodies the political and legal tensions of shifting the economy away from fossil fuels. The underlying rule putting power plants on a deadline to lower smokestack emissions is a prime selling point in keeping other nations committed to Paris climate change accords reached in December.
By jumping in now, the high court also may push the issue of pollution limits onto the desk of the next president, meaning Obama would lose control of a major initiative when his term ends next January. A majority of the GOP presidential candidates don’t accept climate change as a genuine threat and would surely junk the controls.
The court stay fell along predictable lines. It was a 5- to- 4 outcome with the majority composed of a four- member conservative bloc plus swing vote Anthony Kennedy. Important cases like this one continue to be decided by the narrowest of margins.
In this case, the Environmental Protection Agency used its administrative powers to go after carbon emissions from power plants, one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases. The agency intends to set state- by- state limits that will likely shut down older plants and push power producers toward clean tech ideas. The plan aims to remake the nation’s electricity system by cutting emissions by a third by 2030, a major part of the White House’s overall goal to cut greenhouse gases and persuade the rest of the world to join in.
But the target is a huge one, drawing in mining, railroads and over two dozen states that rely on coalproduced power. These states, primarily led by Republican lawmakers, said the EPA had reached too far. In response, 18 other states including California opposed the delay.
The arguments were playing out at the appeals court level with a decision expected in June. But instead of waiting for the matter to inch its way, the top justices reached down to stop EPA enforcement right now. The action is a legal head snapper, a rare act by the high court. It’s hardly clarified by the one- page order, stone silent on the legal reasoning.
The stay is not a final answer. But it strongly suggests a majority of justices don’t like the EPA’s assertion of clout and sympathize with states that want an out. The ruling gives comfort to politicians who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that climate change is a serious threat, and is being driven by human activity.