This article was added by the user . TheWorldNews is not responsible for the content of the platform.

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court is a threat to the world

Former President Donald Trump after
pushed the Republican agendaby overturning federal abortion rights and easing gun law. A majority of conservative courts built by Thursdaylimited the government's ability to combat climate change
In a 6-3 ruling, judges said US law. Has determined that it does not authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to set an upper limit on the Earth. Warming emissions from power plants. President Joe Byden'sThis move has hit US global leaders on this issue, given that the $ 500 billion energy and climate plan is stuck in the Senate. The
decision was made when scientists warned of the dire consequences of accelerated climate change and the fierce wildfire and dry drought in the United States showed that the crisis was already here. I did. And it was particularly disappointing for the White House, as it threatened to undermine Byden's authority on the global stage, just as he would conclude a successful trip to Europe. The president will mediate the entry of two new members (Sweden and Finland) and consolidate NATO's front line to Russia by turning the alliance to yet another key,Collected some big wins. Priority: Build the forefront of international democracy to counter China.

But his credibility in the fight against climate change (another important diplomatic policy priority) is that government lawyers seek alternatives to reduce emissions around the world. Even if the market forces continued to produce coal, it was undermined by the Supreme Court's ruling. The fired power plant was unprofitable or abolished.

Global climate change measures rely on collective efforts. Small countries will not reduce emissions unless the largest pollutants like the United States reduce them. If some countries avoid emissions, the rigorous political choices needed to reduce emissions cannot be made by everyone. And other forces will constrain their own climate goals if they fear losing their competitive advantage over rivals who do not change their economy to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. If Viden's ability to achieve ambitious US climate goals is compromised, he will not be able to set an example and the already eerie plans to avoid catastrophic warming around the world are at stake. May be exposed to.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court's decision threatens to thwart efforts to keep global temperature rise below 2% while pursuing efforts to maintain the 1.5% threshold. I warned that there is.

"Decisions like today's US and other major emission economies of the Paris Agreement, especially for a healthy and livable planet, especially because we need to accelerate phasing out. The transition to coal and renewable energy will make it difficult to reach our goals. "

"But as global emergencies as climate change require a global response, the actions of a single country can determine whether we reach our climate goals. It should also be remembered that it should not be broken. ”

U.S. climate change leadership was often volatile

The world is climate I am accustomed to the US turn around fluctuations.

For example, President Barakuobama helped negotiate the Paris Climate Agreement, which came into force in 2016. But his successor, President Donald Trump, had previously traded climate change in China's mischief. Byden, who declared that "the United States is back," took steps to rejoin the agreement within hours of taking office last year.
The Supreme Court move has hitBiden's ambitious planby halving U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. Create a net zero emission economy by 2050.
{Carol Browner, EPA administrator under the Clinton administration, told CNN Thursday after the Supreme Court's opinion was announced.

In essence, the court ruled that the Clean Air Act does not empower the EPA to regulate carbon emissions from power plants that contribute to climate change. Since the law was enacted in 1970, it did not include detailed instructions to authorities to combat climate change, which was not of widespread global concern at the time.

Supreme Court Secretary John Robertsargued in his majority opinion that the government could not use the law as an authority to introduce rims to combat climate change. ..

"Limiting carbon dioxide emissions at a level that forces a nationwide transition from the use of coal for power generation may be a wise solution to the crisis of the day," Roberts said. Written in the opinion of his majority. "But it is not plausible that Congress empowered the EPA to adopt such a regulatory scheme on its own."

This isthe Constitution of the Supreme Court and US law. The narrow literal readingis the latest example that seems to pay little attention to the situation in the modern world and how the majority of decisions are made. Affect them.
For example, the overthrow of constitutional rights to miscarriage last week producedchaotic aftereffectsand patchwork of national law. Due to the rise in crime in countries that are already flooded with guns, a previous decision was made inNew York Stateto break the law restricting Americans' right to carry guns out of the house. I did.

In opposition to Roberts' opinion, Obama's nominated Judge Elena Cagan is a warming world that consumes large zones of severe hurricanes, droughts, ecosystem destruction, and floods. I explained the miserable photo. East coast. And she claimed that Congress had already empowered the EPA to mitigate "catastrophic harm."

"No matter what else this court knows, there is no clue as to how to deal with climate change," she wrote. She accused her of conservative justice making them "climate policy decision makers."

"I can't think of anything more scary," Kagan concludes.

Republicans welcome the suppression of bureaucracy by the court

Major conservative politicians immediately welcomed and elected this decision. Foretold as a victory to curb the government's overshoot in Washington by no bureaucrats.

"We are pleased that this incident has returned the authority to determine one of the major environmental issues of the day to the right place to determine it." Major coal-producing countries. Patrick Morissy, Republican Attorney General in West Virginia, said.

"This isn't about climate change, it's about maintaining separation of power," Morissy said.

However, the problem with the Supreme Court returning the matter to Congress is that it is difficult for legislators to accomplish what is important. National polarization and Senate obstruction rules have made it a challenge for the narrowly divided Senate to advance major legislation on key issues such as voting rights and gun control. For example, the recently passed gun law was not enough for a major overhaul that many Democrats would have wanted to see. But even though Democrats nominally dominate Washington's political power, they had to go through something that could win a 10 GOP vote.

And there is no willingness among Republicans to tackle climate change. Therefore, the majority of the court's right wing plays an important role in advocating a conservative political agenda to thwart any changes that the Democratic Parliament and the President may enact.

When it comes to issues as urgent as climate change, it is difficult for foreigners to understand. But it ensures that every effort to commit the United States to the global climate battle will inevitably lead to a long-standing political battle in Washington. And that is yet another example of how national polarization threatens its global leadership role.