Did the Supreme Court Doom the Paris Climate Change Deal?
The Clean Power Plan is in bad shape, but the planet might not be. That might be overstating the case. Some advocates had hoped that even before the Clean Power Plan kicked in in 2022, it would shape how energy markets worked . The EPA could regulate, the story went, through the power of positive thinking . Some of this is still true: Renewable energy will keep getting cheaper , and U.S. coal companies are doomed no matter what . But the Courts stay diminishes that effect, at least in the short term. Novembers presidential election will now either ratify or ruin Obamas fight to mitigate climate change. No remaining Republican candidate for president supports imposing federal limits on greenhouse-gas emissions . If the GOP takes the White House, it could drop the case, and use its control of the executive and legislative branch to help fossil fuel companies by offering subsidies. But if Democrats manage to retain the presidency, and a future administration defends the deal, then a significant chunk of Obamas climate legacy will be left to the Supreme Court to decide . Should climate-concerned people really still trust the Clean Power Plan will all work out then? And if Obamas EPA regulations die, will the global accord on climate that he fought for perish too? Not everyone is zen about the Supreme Courts stay. Seth Jaffe, the former president of the American College of Environmental Lawyers , had predicted in December the Court would not stay the regulation . When it did, earlier this week, he took it as a sign of doom. The Clean Power Plan is on very shaky ground at this point, he wrote . One has to conclude that five justices have decided that the rule must go, he said . The terms of the stay are so extraordinary, so unusual, that it means something is up. I hope [the advocates of the regulation] win, but my neutral-objective-advice side says this is a hard one for them, he told me on Thursday. The advocates can talk all they want about how they have deference, and the Supreme Court has given deference to the EPA in the past. But this really is a big rule that is largely unprecedented. Deference is the idea that the courts should give federal agencies some leeway in executing their regulatory duties. In the last 30 years, deference has been applied to labor law and net neutrality , but it takes its name from a 1984 case about the Clean Air Act the same piece of legislation that the EPA is using today. Whats legally controversial with the Clean Power Plan is its two-step approach. First, the plan sets regulatory limits on the amount of carbon dioxide that state electricity plants can emit. Second, it establishes a set of incentives and regulationsit calls them building blocksto entice state utilities to switch away from coal-fire power generation toward natural gas, nuclear power, and renewables. The first step of those two stepsthe one that explicitly concerns carbon dioxideaccounts for less than a quarter of the plans estimated emissions reductions. The second step clears out all the rest, millions and millions of tons of prevented carbon dioxide. Its this second step, and those second-order effects, that opponents allege the EPA doesnt have the authority to set in motion. The Clean Power Plan draws its legal authority from Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Recently, a climate-focused legal team at Columbia University proposed that a different part of the law could let the EPA set up new regulations if the Clean Power Plan falls. This section lets the EPA regulate air pollutants if it works with other countries, something thatka-ching!its doing through the Paris Agreement. Jaffe isnt so sure about this technique, since the Paris Agreement isnt legally binding. Three large American environmental groups said that, at least in the short term, the stay was unlikely to doom the Paris Agreement. ( In a post on Wednesday , I worried that it would.) I think the big picture here is that all countries have their own national circumstances that they have to address as they fashion their own response to climate change. And no countrys political and legal issues are as well understood as the United States, said John Coequyt , the director of federal and international climate campaigns at the Sierra Club. Alden Meyer, the director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists , said he had been talking to climate negotiators around the world and there seems to be general understanding that this a procedural ruling. Theres a little bit of nervousness that were seeing a repeat of the Kyoto Protocol, where the world accommodated U.S. concerns and then saw it not implement it, said Meyer. But he said other countries were expressing a general willingness to wait and see how this plays out in the month to come. He added that other nations wanted the United States to affirm the Paris Agreement by signing it on Earth Day, April 22. Even if the Clean Power Plan falls, theres some signs that America may make its 2025 emissions target anyway. The Sierra Club believes its own efforts, specifically its super successful Beyond Coal program, will allow the U.S. to comply with its Paris Agreement pledge regardless of what the EPA does. Thanks to the Beyond Coal campaign, about a third of U.S. coal plans are retired or scheduled for retirement, Coequyt said. The Obama administration is also pressing down on emissions by regulating other greenhouse-gas sources, such as airplanes, landfills, and natural-gas harvesters. The EPA has also tightened its national ambient-air-quality standards , which will make running coal plants even more expensive and utilities less likely to build them. And in December , Congress extended a pre-existing tax credits for renewable energy companies to 2020. U.S. emissions are declining, Coequyt told me. The main factors driving that change have been things other than the Clean Power Plan up until now. If things had not been going well, and the story was the U.S. is going to turn things around with the Clean Power Plan, this would be a big deal. But local advocacy, air-pollution rules, and cheap natural gas means that it isnt. Many utilities plan to move forward on natural-gas and clean-energy plans no matter what happens . And Obamas policies remain popular: Back in November, two-thirds of Americans and a bare majority of Republicans said they supported regulating carbon-dioxide emissions through domestic policy, according to a poll from The New York Times and CBS . So the positive trends on climate change will largely continueunless, that is, a Republican wins the White House and moves to reverse them.