Still, President Joe Biden said he would take on the challenge.
"I have worked with the Justice Department and affected agencies on the Legal Team to carefully consider this decision and, under federal law, protect Americans from harmful pollution, including causative pollution. I instructed them to find a way to continue. Climate change. "
Here are some steps that Biden and his allies can still take:
Dealing with Manchin
Democrats, of course, are already trying this. Senator Joe Manchin(D-W. Va.)shattered their hopes of enacting a bill on climate, health, and social spendinglast year. And since then, efforts to negotiate packages that focus on a more modest climate haven't created a deal.
To win in this regard, the Democratic Party 50 Senators and Vice President Kamala Harris of Tybreaker—you need to find. 29} They need to enact a bill without Republican support using a process called reconciliation. The buildback better proposal they promoted last year included an incentive for utilities to move to clean energy. Priced for the emission of powerful greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas production. It has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in tax incentives for clean energy and electric vehicles.
However, the package also included measures such as expanded child tax credits and other social spending items blocked by Manchin in opposition to high price tagsHe also forced the Democrats to get rid of the punishing proposals Power companies that don't move fast enough from fossil fuels. Democrats are optimistic, but Manchin can negotiate methane rates that can be supported, but they are more modest than originally expected.
The Supreme Court's ruling may help the Democrats increase the urgency to reach an agreement.
"I don't know if everyone will pass with a probability of 50-50 or more, but at least Manchin may think they agree," said Center President John Podesta. .. American Progress, who led the Obama administration's climate strategy.
One Reality Check: Even if the negotiations are successful, environmentalists say the proposed investment in the bill is far less than the action required to deal with climate change. I have always insisted that it is nothing more than.
Still, after Thursday's court decision, the Green Group immediately called for Congressional action.
“More reforms are needed,” said Carol Browner, a former EPA administrator and chairman of the Federation of Conservation Voters. Earthjustice and Evergreen are also calling for a settlement package.
Have Congress update the Clean Air Act
The Supreme Court's ruling states that if Congress wants the EPA to have radical authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. New law.
This kind of thing has happened before. In 2000, the High Court invalidated the Food and Drug Administration's ability to regulate most tobacco products. Nine years later, Congress passed a law authorizing the FDA.
But climate pollution is different from tobacco, and today's parliament is more polarized than in 2009. Even with the benefits of a majority in the Senate, the Democratic Party tried to pass the Cap and Trade bill in 2010, but failed. Since then, major climate laws have been virtually out of reach.
Among the obstacles: Finding Republicans who think the EPA needs more authority.
West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capitois the Supreme Republican of the Environmental Public Works Commission and still has the authority to deal with climate pollution from power plants. Said that. A much more modest way than the Obama administration's rules that the judge rejected on Thursday. That could undermine the hope that Democrats will beat moderate Republicans to strengthen the Clean Air Act.
"There is still authority, but it must be within the [power plant] fence line. It must be within reasonable size," she said. Said in an interview. "I know what the Biden administration will come up with, but this is where surveillance and transparency are very important."
Several Democrats support legislative action on Thursday. I showed that.
"We need to pass a law that clarifies the EPA's authority to regulate emissions," said Parliamentary Speaker of the CaucusCongressman Pramila Jayapal(D). -Wash.) Said.
But unlike budgetary adjustments, the Democrats couldn't pass this kind of bill with just 51 votes. At least 60 votes are required to overcome the possibility of Republican filibuster. And without the monumental blue wave of November this year, which gives the Democrats a majority, it wouldn't be possible right away. Instead, all polls show that Republicans are likely to gain control of at least one parliament.
Using tools left by the Supreme Court
Judgesdid not completely ban the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. .. They had not determined the exact scope of EPA's authority.
So the EPA isn't as radical as the Obama administration's widespread attempt to move power plants towards cleaner energy, but the Trump era that experts may have actually had. It means that you can try to write rules that are stricter than the regulations of. Increased carbon emissions. However, the Biden administration needs to understand how to reach the normal without crossing it, and the courts provide little guidance on how to do so.
"Two things are true at the same time," said Colin Omara, CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. "(The court) did not rule out the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. They achieved a 50% [emission reduction] by 2030, or the future of net zero with the tools they left behind. Reduced it until it became incredibly difficult to achieve. Behind the scenes. "
The court said the EPA could be based on" fuel switching, efficiency improvements, or other technologies. We acknowledged that we could regulate carbon pollution "by establishing emission limits that are directly imposed on power plants.". Eric Schaefer, Executive Director of the Environmental Protection Project, said: These fuels emit less than coal, which reduces pollution at the source.
However, Thursday's majority rebounded the idea that the EPA only needs to require all coal-fired power plants to switch to natural gas entirely.
"The EPA has never ordered anything in such a remote location, and it is doubtful that it is possible," Roberts wrote. "Performance of existing sources", "... Do not instruct existing sources to effectively stop their existence."
Apart from this, EPA administrator Michael Regan previously said. Since most power plants have a lot of vacant lots around them, we have proposed to require coal-fired power plants to install renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The energy required to operate a power plant. However, no such approach has been proposed so far.
Regan issued a statement on Thursday promising "ambitious" climate change measures.
"EPA will move forward by legally setting and enforcing environmental standards that meet our obligation to protect all people and all communities from environmental damage," he says. I did. All previous regulations created under that part of the Clean Air Act were limited to reducing emissions at the source.
Message: EPA has a close relationship. Returning to
Republicans are likely to take over at least one parliament this year , so environmentalists are already in the state for a climate change victory Preparing to pivot to. The Supreme Court's ruling probably accelerated those efforts.
Activist pressure remains on the EPA to issue as strong a rule as possible, but Roberts' opinion is uncertain about how far federal greenhouse gas regulations can go. Raised sex. It blames the climate on states that want to green their economies — andgrassroots efforts focus on pushing those states stronger
"I Will not undermine the capabilities of large states like California and New York York and some others will have a dog-shaking tail in the country's climate policy. "Rep. Jared Huffman(D) -Calif.) Said in an interview.
Some of these states are preparing to respond to that call.
The court's ruling "returns the burden to New York," said Basil Segos, a member of the State Department of Environmental Conservation, "the most aggressive climate, energy and book environmental law in the United States. This has relatively little impact on these laws. "
However, countless Trump era analyzes show that the Blue State-only coalition continues to worsen storms, droughts, and mountain fires. Showed that the United States cannot be put on the road to reducing greenhouse gas fast enough to avoid. This means that environmental groups organize activists across the foundations of democracy and encourage new actions in purple states like North Carolina and Georgia.
Organizers also said fossil fuel power plants and others in states that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, such as Texas and Louisiana, even if state leaders are hostile to climate change. Attempts to win tactical victories, such as closing the infrastructure of Louisiana. It also aims to help the democratic Midwestern governors of states such as Michigan and Wisconsin maximize spending from last year's $ 1.2 trillion infrastructure law, including climate change measures. increase.
Marie French contributed to this report.