Obstacle to Biden's climate agenda.  The US Supreme Court sets the limits of environmental jurisdictionWorld News 

Obstacle to Biden’s climate agenda. The US Supreme Court sets the limits of environmental jurisdiction

An obstacle to Biden’s climate agenda
The US Supreme Court has imposed restrictions on the environmental agency

View of the pillars of the Supreme Court against the backdrop of the US Capitol. Photo by J. Scott Applewhite / AP / dpa

© dpa-infocom GmbH:

Following the controversial decision on abortion rights in the United States, the supreme judges have now targeted Biden’s climate policy, properly slowing down the president.

The defeat of Joe Biden. The US Supreme Court has dealt another serious blow to the US President with its decision on climate policy.

The Supreme Court in Washington has ruled that far-reaching rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions go beyond the authority of the US Environmental Protection Agency. The background to this is the coal lobby protest. After the current decision, it will be very difficult for the United States to achieve its climate goals. Even the United Nations described the verdict as “a setback in our fight against climate change.”

Biden called the decision “destructive”.

About a week ago, the court, with its conservative majority, caused a political earthquake, overturning the right to abortion. Biden also called the decision on climate policy “destructive”. You will return the country. The court is on the side of special interests, the US President said. The existential threat to public health caused by the climate crisis will not be ignored. He said he would work with cities and towns to pass legislation that would ease the pressure of global warming.

The case, which is now pending, began as a dispute over the EPA’s jurisdiction to force power plants to reduce their pollution. However, it is more a question of how much authority գործակալ should have federal agencies that, like the EPA, are subordinate to the government. Until now, Biden has been able to try to regulate environmental pollution through such federal agencies. This is becoming more complicated now.

As one of his first official actions, Biden ordered the United States to return to the International Climate Agreement. According to this, the United States must produce electricity without carbon dioxide emissions by 2035, and reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2050. He also stated that by 2030 he would like to reduce at least twice the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States compared to 2005. However, the realization of these goals is a problem.

The climate package is currently frozen

The US Congress has so far done little to address climate change, delegating powers to experts with expertise. Biden’s large social-climatic package was also blocked in the Senate է suspended. The measures included in the package, including clean energy investments, electric car subsidies, energy repairs, should significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and help the United States achieve the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Tightening the requirements for limiting carbon dioxide emissions to burn less coal could be a sensible solution, according to a ruling by Conservative Judge John Roberts. But it does not make sense for Congress to give such authority to the environmental agency. “The decision of such frameworks and consequences belongs to the Congress itself or to any agency operating under the clear instructions of this representative body.”

The three judges, who are considered liberal, voted against the conservative majority. “The court appoints itself, not the Congress or the competent body, as the climate policy-maker. “I can not think of many more terrible things,” wrote Judge Elena Kagan.

“Systematic, multi-year strategy.”

The current case before the Supreme Court is the result of a “coordinated, multi-year strategy” by Republican prosecutors, conservative legal activists and their financiers to weaken the executive branch’s ability to fight global warming, according to the New York Times. It is written to say. The plaintiffs, some of whom have ties to the oil and coal industry, wanted to suppress the so-called administrative state.

The memorable session of the Supreme Court ended with the verdict. The recent decisions, which have repeatedly been in favor of conservative plaintiffs, are not surprising. The then US President Donald Trump moved the Supreme Court to the right with his personnel decisions. The court has repeatedly sided with religious plaintiffs or extended the gun law.

At the end of the current term, at the request of President Biden, Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first black woman in American history to be sworn in as a Supreme Court justice. He replaces the liberal Steven Breyer, who is retiring. This does not change anything in terms of the majority in court.

Long-distance decisions are expected again from autumn. For example, a court reviews a suffrage claim to see if states can enact rules that courts have previously ruled unconstitutional. First of all, it refers to the so-called rage. the political practice of the two dominant parties to manipulate the boundaries of constituencies for their own benefit.

dpa:

Related posts

Leave a Comment