The China Mail - US Supreme Court hears climate case as UN issues stark warning

USD -
AED 3.672992
AFN 69.489986
ALL 84.291688
AMD 383.839605
ANG 1.789699
AOA 916.999967
ARS 1319.896786
AUD 1.54696
AWG 1.8025
AZN 1.703586
BAM 1.695528
BBD 2.019931
BDT 122.652264
BGN 1.702503
BHD 0.376963
BIF 2942.5
BMD 1
BND 1.289721
BOB 6.912904
BRL 5.607501
BSD 1.000429
BTN 87.444679
BWP 13.523249
BYN 3.273935
BYR 19600
BZD 2.009545
CAD 1.380165
CDF 2889.999809
CHF 0.809365
CLF 0.024626
CLP 965.903248
CNY 7.176898
CNH 7.203695
COP 4180.22
CRC 505.767255
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 95.950068
CZK 21.408976
DJF 177.720257
DKK 6.494535
DOP 61.000234
DZD 130.665077
EGP 48.688802
ERN 15
ETB 138.195699
EUR 0.870199
FJD 2.26455
FKP 0.749719
GBP 0.75184
GEL 2.683085
GGP 0.749719
GHS 10.501353
GIP 0.749719
GMD 72.000309
GNF 8655.999991
GTQ 7.675736
GYD 209.303031
HKD 7.84994
HNL 26.350282
HRK 6.563398
HTG 131.278148
HUF 348.138498
IDR 16447.4
ILS 3.370915
IMP 0.749719
INR 87.524998
IQD 1310
IRR 42112.496152
ISK 123.77952
JEP 0.749719
JMD 160.078717
JOD 0.709016
JPY 148.737499
KES 129.502337
KGS 87.449649
KHR 4015.000089
KMF 426.481732
KPW 899.916557
KRW 1389.709963
KWD 0.305703
KYD 0.833727
KZT 543.834174
LAK 21574.999791
LBP 89550.000023
LKR 302.24403
LRD 200.999765
LSL 17.890173
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 5.414999
MAD 9.089499
MDL 17.067261
MGA 4430.000077
MKD 53.368936
MMK 2098.902778
MNT 3590.484358
MOP 8.089174
MRU 39.820637
MUR 46.119586
MVR 15.401776
MWK 1736.499952
MXN 18.77485
MYR 4.240579
MZN 63.959915
NAD 17.889939
NGN 1531.000199
NIO 36.750139
NOK 10.251295
NPR 139.9101
NZD 1.687835
OMR 0.384529
PAB 1.000438
PEN 3.552498
PGK 4.152023
PHP 57.854002
PKR 283.249583
PLN 3.71645
PYG 7492.815376
QAR 3.64075
RON 4.416704
RSD 102.004735
RUB 81.252889
RWF 1440
SAR 3.75154
SBD 8.244163
SCR 14.472936
SDG 600.502571
SEK 9.71061
SGD 1.292885
SHP 0.785843
SLE 23.000277
SLL 20969.503947
SOS 571.50088
SRD 36.670024
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.45
SVC 8.753321
SYP 13001.94935
SZL 17.889582
THB 32.651497
TJS 9.563891
TMT 3.51
TND 2.894989
TOP 2.342098
TRY 40.582505
TTD 6.788933
TWD 29.70101
TZS 2570.000105
UAH 41.765937
UGX 3586.538128
UYU 40.034504
UZS 12600.000148
VES 122.68725
VND 26202.5
VUV 119.475888
WST 2.757115
XAF 568.669132
XAG 0.026577
XAU 0.000303
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.80294
XDR 0.69341
XOF 568.664202
XPF 103.850093
YER 240.649912
ZAR 17.932005
ZMK 9001.198585
ZMW 22.984061
ZWL 321.999592
  • CMSC

    -0.0630

    22.547

    -0.28%

  • SCU

    0.0000

    12.72

    0%

  • RIO

    -2.9300

    59.34

    -4.94%

  • NGG

    -0.0300

    70.49

    -0.04%

  • SCS

    -0.0900

    10.42

    -0.86%

  • GSK

    1.2300

    38.9

    +3.16%

  • BTI

    0.4800

    53.25

    +0.9%

  • BCC

    -1.0500

    85.09

    -1.23%

  • CMSD

    -0.1800

    22.94

    -0.78%

  • RYCEF

    -0.1800

    13.2

    -1.36%

  • BCE

    -0.1750

    23.485

    -0.75%

  • RBGPF

    -3.5200

    74.03

    -4.75%

  • AZN

    2.4600

    76.44

    +3.22%

  • BP

    -0.8200

    32.14

    -2.55%

  • JRI

    0.0480

    13.108

    +0.37%

  • VOD

    -0.0350

    11.075

    -0.32%

  • RELX

    -0.2800

    51.64

    -0.54%

US Supreme Court hears climate case as UN issues stark warning
US Supreme Court hears climate case as UN issues stark warning

US Supreme Court hears climate case as UN issues stark warning

A divided US Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday in an environmental regulation case with potentially far-reaching implications for the Biden administration's fight against climate change.

Text size:

The 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.

As the Supreme Court was hearing arguments, the United Nations issued a landmark report containing dire warnings over climate change.

While the three liberal justices on the nine-member Supreme Court appeared largely to support arguments that the EPA was operating within its brief, several of the conservative justices appeared skeptical.

"This agency is doing greenhouse gas regulation," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the liberal members of the court. "This is in, you know, exactly in its wheelhouse."

Jacob Roth, arguing for The North America Coal Corp., said the EPA is going beyond its remit.

"The agency is asking questions like: Should we phase out the coal industry? Should we build more solar farms in this country? Should we restrict how consumers use electricity in order to bring down emissions?

"Those are not the types of questions we expect the agency to be answering," Roth said.

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.

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 former Republican president Donald Trump, who replaced it with his own industry-friendly Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule.

Trump, a climate change skeptic hostile to government regulation of industry, also nominated three justices to the Supreme Court, giving conservatives a 6-3 majority.

- 'Constrain EPA authority' -

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

West Virginia and several other coal-producing states asked the Supreme Court to intervene and define the powers of the EPA. The case has also been embraced by opponents of strong government regulatory authority.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing before the court for the Biden administration, said the justices should just wait until the EPA publishes its new rules.

"The DC Circuit's judgment leaves no EPA rule in effect," Prelogar said. "No federal regulation will occur until EPA completes its upcoming rulemaking.

"Petitioners aren't harmed by the status quo," she said. "Instead, what they seek from this court is a decision to constrain EPA authority in the upcoming rulemaking."

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

Justice Samuel Alito, one of the more conservative members of the court, questioned how far the EPA could go in regulating emissions.

"Is there any reason EPA couldn't force the adoption of a system for single family homes that is similar to what it has done, what it is claiming it can do, with respect to existing power plants?" Alito asked.

Prelogar, the solicitor general, replied that the EPA "has never listed homes as a source category and couldn't do so because they are far too diverse and differentiated."

UN experts, in the report issued Monday on the global impacts of climate change, said humanity is perilously close to missing its chance to secure a "liveable" future.

"The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and planetary health," the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said.

Any further delay in global action to cut carbon pollution and prepare for impacts already in the pipeline "will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all," the 195-nation IPCC warned.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision in West Virginia vs EPA before June.

W.Tam--ThChM