The very conservative Supreme Court of the United States limited, Thursday, June 30, the federal means to fight against global warming, in a judgment which could more widely complicate all the regulatory efforts of the American State.
The high court found that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could not enact general rules to regulate emissions from coal-fired power plants, which produce nearly 20% of electricity in the United States.
A White House spokesperson denounced "a devastating new decision by the (Supreme) Court that aims to set our country back" after the institution weakened the federal state's environmental regulatory power.
US President Joe Biden "will not hesitate to use his powers under the law to protect public health and address the climate change crisis," according to a short statement released to the press.
A "setback" for the environment, according to the UN
For his part, the Secretary General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, judged that the judgment marked a "setback" in the fight against the environmental crisis.
"We can say that this is a setback in our fight against climate change, when we are already very late in achieving the objectives of the Paris agreement" adopted in 2015, notes the door- speech in a press release.
>> To read also: After abortion, why other rights are threatened by the American Supreme Court
The judgment was adopted by the six conservative magistrates of the Court, on the last day of a historic session, marked by the end of the right to abortion and the sanctuarization of those who bear arms.
“Putting a cap on carbon dioxide emissions at a level that would require a nationwide switch from coal to power generation may be a relevant solution to today's crisis,” Judge John Roberts wrote in their name.
"But it is not credible that Congress gave the EPA the authority to pass such a measure."
Their three progressive colleagues dissociated themselves from a decision deemed "frightening".
"The Court stripped the EPA of the power Congress gave it to address 'the most pressing problem of our time,'" wrote Judge Elena Kagan, recalling that the six hottest years have been recorded in the course of the last decade.
An “extremist” Supreme Court
Reflecting the divisions of American society on environmental issues, the decision was immediately welcomed by the Republican Party, hostile to any federal regulation and defender of fossil fuels.
“Today, the Supreme Court is giving power back to the people,” said its Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, criticizing Democratic President Joe Biden “for waging a war on affordable energy” despite an inflation rate. record.
The Democrats, like the young elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the contrary considered the decision "catastrophic".
“Our planet is on fire and this extremist Supreme Court is destroying the ability of the federal power to fight back,” added Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Appalled, environmental defense organizations highlighted the gap with the rest of the world.
“The decision threatens the United States with being relegated far behind our international partners who are accelerating efforts to meet their climate commitments,” said Nathaniel Keohane, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
In 2007, the Supreme Court had nevertheless decided by a narrow majority that the EPA was competent to regulate the emissions of gases responsible for global warming, in the same way that it is charged by a law of the 1960s with limiting the pollution of the 'air.
But since then, former Republican President Donald Trump, a climatosceptic hostile to any restrictive measure for the industry, has brought three magistrates into the temple of American law.
Beyond the EPA, their decision could limit the efforts of all federal regulatory agencies, including that on occupational health and safety (OSHA).
"The majority said agencies cannot take meaningful action to meet their goals, no matter how high the stakes," environmental law professor Robert Percival of the University of Maryland told AFP. .
She "insists that these agencies get 'clear authorization from Congress,' but she knows Congress is extremely dysfunctional," adds Harvard professor Richard Lazarus.
Given the fractures between elected officials, hoping for the adoption of a climate law seems indeed a wishful thinking.
Clean Power Plan
Concretely, the file at the heart of the decision finds its source in an ambitious plan adopted in 2015 by Barack Obama to reduce CO2 emissions.
This "Clean Power Plan", whose implementation fell to the EPA, had been blocked before coming into force.
In 2019, Donald Trump published his own "Affordable Clean Energy Rule", limiting the scope of the EPA's action within each electricity production site, without authorizing it to remodel the entire network.
A federal court having invalidated this draft, several conservative states and the coal industry asked the Supreme Court to intervene and clarify the powers of the EPA.
The government of Democrat Joe Biden had made it known that it did not intend to resurrect Barack Obama's plan and had asked the High Court to declare the file obsolete to avoid a decision with harmful consequences.
His bet failed.
With AFP
The summary of the
France 24 week invites you to come back to the news that marked the week
I subscribe
Take international news everywhere with you!
Download the France 24 app
google-play-badge_EN