[Epoch Times, July 03, 2022](Epoch Times reporter Song Tang comprehensive report) On June 30, on the last day of adjournment, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) change the way of electricity generation did not get clear congress authorized. Compared with overturning the Roe v. Wade case, West Virginia vs. the EPA (hereinafter referred to as the EPA case) may have a bigger impact on the Biden administration politically force.
If Roe v. Wade is about conservative justices preventing the left from imposing its agenda on the population through judicial decisions, and EPA preventing the left from pushing its agenda through executive branch regulations, both circumvent congressional mandates , the “EPA case” ruling defended the legislative power of Congress and blocked the left’s abuse of the judiciary and the executive branch.
Not only does this dampen the momentum of the climate movement and stop the EPA from overreaching, but it also has far-reaching implications for the making of many federal policies, potentially upending the way federal agencies have issued executive orders to drive policy for decades.
The CCP, which is trying to achieve a “win-win” on climate change, is afraid of losing the leverage to threaten the United States. It feels very “lost” at the loss of the US government, and wants the US government to “face up to their historical responsibilities and show greater ambition and action.” .
End the executive order’s path to advancing climate issues
Back in June 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first proposed the Clean Power Plan, under which carbon emissions from U.S. power plants will be reduced by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030 % and will completely redistribute the U.S. grid. At the same time, all states in the United States are required to meet emission reduction targets, and they must submit specific arrangements for how to meet the targets to the US Environmental Protection Administrator.
In August 2015, on the eve of the Paris climate conference, Obama announced the “clean energy plan” because legislative efforts to reduce carbon dioxide pollution had been rejected in Congress, and Obama bypassed Congress and implemented it with an executive order.
But the plan was immediately opposed by 28 states and hundreds of companies, who believed Obama was “declaring war on coal.” West Virginia is the most reliant on coal for electricity generation (95%), so West Virginia is the initiator of the prosecution.
West Virginia and others have challenged the EPA’s rule-making powers, taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit). The circuit court accepted the case in January 2016 without hearing it or issuing an injunction, and in February the Supreme Court issued an interim injunction at the request of the plaintiff state and company.
After Trump took office in 2017, he repealed the Clean Power Plan and in August 2018 issued a new set of proposed emissions regulations known as the Affordable Clean Energy.
Therefore, the “Clean Power Plan” has not been really implemented since the day it started. However, the Supreme Court ruling is equivalent to ending the Biden administration’s road to large-scale carbon dioxide reduction through executive orders.
By the end of this year, the Biden administration is expected to introduce proposals to regulate power plant emissions, with the goal of halving U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and achieving a zero-emissions power sector by 2035.
Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion that “limiting carbon dioxide emissions to a certain level and forcing the nation to phase out coal for electricity generation may be a sensible solution to the current crisis. However, The Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the authority to do this, and Congress must have a clear voice on this issue.”
The ruling also introduced the “This Major Questions Doctrine,” whereby executive agencies claim the authority to make major economic and political changes, such as the EPA’s proposed multibillion-dollar restructuring of power plants (mandatory capital investment). , raising energy prices), courts should challenge this claim unless explicitly and clearly mandated by legislation.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion: “There is no provision in the Constitution to authorize the executive branch to use the pen and telephone to substitute for laws passed by the representatives of the people.”
The Supreme Court’s decision is a game-changer for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, limiting the EPA’s power to mandate carbon emissions.
What’s more, this is far from the end, and this ruling opens the door to more lawsuits, any EPA regulations, any administrative regulations, will be litigated.
The EPA case also raises the key question of whether important policies that affect the lives of all Americans should be made by unelected federal agencies in Washington, D.C. Or is it set by a Congress elected by voters?
Why is the climate issue driven by executive orders?
Although the issue of climate change has been hyped by some media and political figures, and “global warming” has also been emphasized as a scientific consensus or scientific conclusion (settled science), this is only an agenda promoted by a few leftists. It cannot be passed in the US Congress, whether it is the past Obama administration or the current Biden administration.
The Supreme Court ruled that “significant issues” such as climate change deserve concrete action by Congress, but that’s impossible. The way the Biden administration is pushing through legislation, with opposition from Congressional Republican and West Virginia Democrat Senator Joe Manchin, has little chance.
Senator Joe Manchin, who voted against the Green New Deal in 2019, said the Green New Deal was “not practical” and “if you’re talking about the global climate, it really doesn’t work,” Manchin said. To ‘eliminate’ the way to achieve a cleaner environment, you have to innovate in a way.”
“Unfortunately, our politics doesn’t care about the climate system,” Northern Illinois climate scientist Victor Gensini told The Associated Press. He added that the court “basically took the regulation of carbon dioxide and Decisions on other gases are left to those in Congress who may not have the best interests of the planet in mind.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a leading climate advocate and Rhode Island Democrat, told The Associated Press that the Supreme Court has limited the government’s ability to act, “and the problem is, they shut down the executive branch of regulation. capacity, and then they hand the issue to Congress, where we are blocked by the ‘filibuster’.”
Limit the over-inflation of the executive branch
Some legal scholars believe the ruling has implications beyond climate change and the EPA, and could have broader implications for the regulatory work of other agencies, from education to transportation and food.
Because the Supreme Court announced that it would apply the “This Major Questions Doctrine” “broadly and aggressively”.
As a result, no matter when the Biden regulations are introduced, there will definitely be plenty of court challenges, and that will definitely be an argument for trying to invalidate the regulations.
Blake Emerson, a UCLA law professor, said administration agencies may become more cautious because of the ruling, “whose efforts to address significant threats to public health and safety are less likely to be effective,” said Blake Emerson, a UCLA law professor. act”.
In fact, before that, conservatives wanted the Supreme Court to take action to challenge the U.S. Department of Education’s determination of the protection categories of Title IX of the Education Law Amendment (Title IX), the rules extended to LGBTQ students, and the upcoming rules on sports. Transgender Student Rights Regulations.
Earlier this year, The Occupational Safety and Health Administration directed employers with 100 or more workers to ensure their employees are vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19. A six-judge conservative ruling has ruled that the OSHA has overstepped its statutory role in workplace safety.
In response to the overreach of government professional administrators, George F. Will wrote in a Washington Post column: Since Woodrow Wilson, activists have wanted to marginalize Congress so that public The “science” of management has nothing to do with politics and aims to liberate so-called disinterested experts to apply so-called “neutral science” to the betterment of society without political oversight.
They argue that the complexities of modern life require government to be run by expert administrators with “great power and unhindered discretion”. The Supreme Court’s decision shows that this is not a sufficient reason to abandon the constitutional separation of powers, which still constrains those who run us.
For fear of losing leverage, the CCP is quite lost
After the Supreme Court ruled on the “EPA case”, the CCP made high-profile accusations on the one hand, but felt disappointed that it might lose a bargaining chip.
Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, said the United States must fulfill its international obligations on climate change and do more than “calling slogans”. “We urge developed countries, including the United States, to face up to their history. responsibility, show greater ambition and action.”
The CCP has always weaponized the issue of climate change, using climate policy both as a way to strengthen its economy and as a weapon to weaken other countries. Climate change is a rare issue on which the US and China can cooperate, but once the US demands something from the CCP, the CCP will use it to weaponize it. The United States will never get the cooperation of the CCP. (For a detailed report, please click “Analysis: The CCP’s Words and Deeds Are Different in Addressing Climate Change”).
Climate change is a win-win for the CCP, which can claim its commitment to clean energy without sacrificing its heavy reliance on fossil fuels.
Chinese Vice Premier Han Zheng recently described coal as the “ballast stone” of the economy, adding that China “needs to maintain the bottom line of energy security based on the basic national conditions in which coal dominates.”
Responsible editor: Lin Yan #