Berliner Boersenzeitung - US Supreme Court to hear high-stakes environmental case

EUR -
AED 3.93191
AFN 74.934023
ALL 100.192131
AMD 415.522218
ANG 1.928991
AOA 915.808176
ARS 969.607303
AUD 1.607077
AWG 1.926886
AZN 1.778553
BAM 1.951156
BBD 2.161036
BDT 125.761858
BGN 1.956169
BHD 0.403409
BIF 3063.748671
BMD 1.070492
BND 1.447841
BOB 7.396396
BRL 5.838506
BSD 1.070343
BTN 89.523495
BWP 14.483394
BYN 3.502265
BYR 20981.647082
BZD 2.157465
CAD 1.464979
CDF 3048.762005
CHF 0.954366
CLF 0.036176
CLP 998.212863
CNY 7.771879
CNH 7.805778
COP 4458.011234
CRC 559.463235
CUC 1.070492
CUP 28.368043
CVE 110.686817
CZK 24.905857
DJF 190.247651
DKK 7.45887
DOP 63.212278
DZD 144.025914
EGP 51.07233
ERN 16.057383
ETB 61.576478
FJD 2.400847
FKP 0.83991
GBP 0.845656
GEL 2.965407
GGP 0.83991
GHS 16.217803
GIP 0.83991
GMD 72.55263
GNF 9200.880601
GTQ 8.306928
GYD 223.927047
HKD 8.35525
HNL 26.789047
HRK 7.513183
HTG 142.013942
HUF 396.775824
IDR 17650.864132
ILS 3.992931
IMP 0.83991
INR 89.508509
IQD 1402.344779
IRR 45067.721549
ISK 149.098451
JEP 0.83991
JMD 166.455386
JOD 0.758656
JPY 170.137073
KES 137.555396
KGS 93.022453
KHR 4421.133413
KMF 492.373125
KPW 963.443119
KRW 1490.10337
KWD 0.328288
KYD 0.891969
KZT 492.872346
LAK 23499.981845
LBP 95916.101312
LKR 326.742344
LRD 207.675494
LSL 19.268445
LTL 3.160885
LVL 0.64753
LYD 5.19729
MAD 10.659929
MDL 19.137274
MGA 4792.593612
MKD 61.522827
MMK 3476.916902
MNT 3693.198188
MOP 8.604441
MRU 42.073804
MUR 49.938409
MVR 16.469537
MWK 1855.699432
MXN 19.651807
MYR 5.047388
MZN 68.185043
NAD 19.268584
NGN 1593.963098
NIO 39.372921
NOK 11.287168
NPR 143.238419
NZD 1.748128
OMR 0.412086
PAB 1.070353
PEN 4.082001
PGK 4.174438
PHP 63.015557
PKR 298.130219
PLN 4.327029
PYG 8054.829277
QAR 3.897127
RON 4.976291
RSD 117.054866
RUB 93.535166
RWF 1407.69724
SAR 4.015933
SBD 9.035137
SCR 14.617603
SDG 643.36556
SEK 11.237032
SGD 1.449981
SHP 1.352513
SLE 24.457859
SLL 22447.688199
SOS 611.251125
SRD 32.856082
STD 22157.027184
SVC 9.365797
SYP 2689.644219
SZL 19.268261
THB 39.328833
TJS 11.37234
TMT 3.746723
TND 3.343687
TOP 2.52433
TRY 35.153759
TTD 7.26963
TWD 34.629143
TZS 2810.042285
UAH 43.374273
UGX 4008.459751
USD 1.070492
UYU 42.160052
UZS 13531.021458
VEF 3877914.225098
VES 38.89468
VND 27249.378901
VUV 127.090948
WST 2.998037
XAF 654.393412
XAG 0.034787
XAU 0.000453
XCD 2.893059
XDR 0.812363
XOF 654.606448
XPF 119.331742
YER 267.99783
ZAR 19.24138
ZMK 9635.713166
ZMW 27.266106
ZWL 344.698051
  • RBGPF

    0.0000

    56.5

    0%

  • CMSC

    -0.1050

    24.4507

    -0.43%

  • RIO

    0.6600

    66.92

    +0.99%

  • GSK

    -0.1900

    40.76

    -0.47%

  • RELX

    0.0700

    45.65

    +0.15%

  • BP

    0.3200

    35.71

    +0.9%

  • RYCEF

    0.1600

    6.13

    +2.61%

  • BTI

    0.3800

    31.5

    +1.21%

  • NGG

    1.3500

    57.85

    +2.33%

  • AZN

    0.1400

    78.56

    +0.18%

  • SCS

    -0.4100

    12.18

    -3.37%

  • JRI

    0.1800

    12.03

    +1.5%

  • VOD

    0.1800

    9.09

    +1.98%

  • BCE

    0.2900

    32.79

    +0.88%

  • CMSD

    -0.0600

    24.24

    -0.25%

  • BCC

    -3.5700

    122.72

    -2.91%

US Supreme Court to hear high-stakes environmental case
US Supreme Court to hear high-stakes environmental case

US Supreme Court to hear high-stakes environmental case

The conservative-dominated US Supreme Court is to hear an environmental regulation case on Monday with potentially far-reaching implications for the Biden administration's fight against climate change.

Text size:

The high-stakes case concerns the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, which produce nearly 20 percent of the electricity in the United States.

"This is the first major climate change case to be before the justices in 15 years and the court's membership has dramatically changed since then," said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard University.

In 2007, the Supreme Court, by a narrow majority, ruled that the EPA has the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act of 1970.

The nation's highest court has been radically transformed in recent years, however.

Former Republican president Donald Trump, a climate change skeptic hostile to government regulation of industry, nominated three justices to the nine-member court, giving conservatives a 6-3 majority.

"Because we have the most conservative Supreme Court that we've had in decades many of the people from the fossil fuel industry are asking the court to do all kinds of outrageous things to limit EPA authority," said Robert Percival, director of the Environmental Law Program at the University of Maryland.

In 2015, Democratic president Barack Obama unveiled his Clean Power Plan, which was intended to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal- and gas-burning plants and shifting energy production to clean sources such as solar and wind power.

The Clean Power Plan was blocked in the Supreme Court in 2016 and repealed by Trump, who replaced it with his own industry-friendly Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia threw out Trump's ACE rule on the last day of his presidency, however, setting the stage for the case currently before the Supreme Court: West Virginia vs EPA.

- 'Christmas gift' -

West Virginia and several other coal-producing states asked the Supreme Court to intervene and define the powers of the EPA. By accepting the case, the court sent a signal to detractors of the agency and, more broadly, opponents of strong government regulatory authority.

"This was like a Christmas gift to regulated industries," Percival told AFP.

In its brief to the court, West Virginia accused the EPA of acting like "the country's central energy planning authority."

The EPA is "reshaping the power grids and seizing control over electricity production nationwide" without the express authorization of Congress, the state said.

No matter "how serious the problem," West Virginia said, a federal agency "may not exercise its authority in a manner that is inconsistent with the administrative structure that Congress enacted into law."

Harvard's Lazarus said there is "good reason for concern" that the court will rule against the EPA.

The court could find that Congress is "powerless to delegate an administrative agency the authority to issue regulations that address major public health and welfare issues such as climate change," he said.

"Or, that it can do so only with very precise statutory language enacted by Congress.

"In either event, given how partisan gridlock (is in Congress) such a ruling would seriously threaten the national government's ability to address some of the nation's most pressing problems including, but not limited to climate change."

- 'Free from oversight' -

Several environmental protection groups have submitted their own briefs to the court in support of the EPA.

"In the absence of sustained efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," a group of climate scientists said, "the total increase in temperature could surpass 10 degrees (Fahrenheit) -- leading to physical and ecological impacts that would be irreversible for thousands of years, if ever."

"It is still possible to mitigate the human and economic costs of climate change," they said, "if greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants and other sources can be reduced.

"But such mitigation will require significant coordination at the federal level."

A group of Democratic lawmakers, including Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, submitted a brief urging the court to reject a case they said was being brought by those in favor of "an era free from oversight by the government."

"Metrics that boomed in the 20th century, from average lifespan to economic productivity, were made possible by a slew of new regulations aimed at protecting the public welfare," they said.

"As the excesses of powerful industries were reined in, however, these same regulations fostered resentment among those seeking to operate without such restraint.

"These cases are the direct product of that resentment."

(S.G.Stein--BBZ)