Supreme Court: What the judgment of the highest US court means for global climate protection

Dear reader,

Finally making progress on climate protection has become a whole lot more difficult since yesterday.

Especially in the USA but not only.

On the afternoon of German time, the highest court decided to significantly restrict the powers of the national environmental authority, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), when it comes to climate protection.

The Conservative majority decreed that the EPA should no longer be able to enact significant regulations to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants.

The damage that this can cause to climate protection policy is more far-reaching than it would be if there were corresponding restrictions for a comparable authority in Germany, for two main reasons:

• Until now, the US government has been permitted to enact significant emissions reduction policies directly through the Agency.

  With appropriate guidelines, it would have been conceivable, for example, to make the operation of coal-fired power plants so difficult that operators would ultimately have taken them off the grid voluntarily.

  Biden's Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, also went down this path.

  The Supreme Court has now put a stop to this, and other authorities could soon be affected by this change of direction.

• The lack of alternatives beyond the EPA makes it questionable whether the Biden administration can still stick to its climate plans after the ruling.

  Because the classic way of getting the energy transition through the law is also blocked.

  Significant parts of the energy transition agenda are stuck in Congress.

  Due to the narrow majority there and a blockade, above all by the Democratic dissenter Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia (who incidentally earns large amounts of money with coal power privately) and the negative front of the Republicans, Congress has been almost unable to act on climate legislation for months.

The prospects that the blockade in Congress will dissolve and that Joe Biden will be able to push his ambitious plans through there are bleak.

Midterm elections are in a few months, and it is likely that the majority situation will become even less favorable for Biden after the ballot.

In fact, the government wants to decarbonize the energy sector by 2035, and nationwide emissions are set to fall by 50 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.

The verdict could also have an impact on international climate policy

Both projects would not have been easy to achieve anyway; due to the double climate blockade, they are now almost out of reach.

However, the government may try to use the EPA's remaining powers in a roundabout way: New regulations on mercury, smog and soot emissions could restrict the operation of coal-fired power plants, for example, or make them so expensive that their operation is no longer economically viable.

It is still unclear whether this will work.

"Biden will not be able to meet the climate protection goals - because what he will deliver in the near future will not be enough," climate expert Susanne Dröge from the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin dampened hopes in an interview with SPIEGEL.

Dröge also fears the impact on international climate policy: »At the national level, there is simply a lack of substance if the USA cannot show any measurable successes.

That's why this verdict is likely to be seen internationally as a severe blow to the implementation of the treaty." And that, says the expert, "is really bad news."

If you like, we will inform you once a week about the most important things about the climate crisis - stories, research results and the latest developments on the biggest issue of our time.

You can subscribe to the newsletter here.

The topics of the week

Supreme Court curtails powers of the US environmental agency: "Biden will not be able to meet climate protection goals" 

The US Supreme Court has curtailed one of the government's most important climate protection instruments: the environmental agency.

The effects are likely to be serious, also internationally.

What the agreement of the EU states on mobility means: That's it for the combustion engine - despite Germany's lurching course 

The end for new cars with combustion engines from 2035 will come.

The German insistence on e-fuels has caused confusion in Brussels - the synthetic fuel is hardly suitable as a replacement for electric cars.

E-Fuels: Can FDP petrol still save the combustion engine? 

Diesel and petrol engines may have a future after all: at least German liberals are linking this hope to an EU clause on artificial fuel.

Right?

Answers to the most important questions.

MEPs on the combustion engine compromise: "It's about this man's thing" 

From 2035, fuel cars should only be refueled with e-fuels - this is what an EU compromise envisages.

But the Green MEP Jutta Paulus thinks that is out of the question.

Here she explains why.

Germany isn't moving: How bad is the situation with the railways, Minister of Transport? 

Dilapidated bridges, the end of the internal combustion engine and a train that far too often comes too late: Here Volker Wissing explains how he wants to make Germany mobile - and what conflicts there are in the traffic light coalition.

Experiments with seagrass: Can underwater meadows help save the climate? 

They are not as colorful as coral reefs, but seagrass beds can store an amazing amount of carbon dioxide.

In the Baltic Sea, biologists are testing whether the grass can be planted on a large scale.

But there is a problem.

Gas resolution of the G7: the chancellor's climate about- 

face Just recently, Germany undertook to stop investing in fossil fuel projects abroad.

But now Olaf Scholz is promoting gas production in Africa.

What the G7 energy decision means.

»Climate Report« podcast: How oil companies are ignoring the climate crisis

Fossil companies, especially oil companies, are currently posting enormous profits.

Many are even planning new projects – also because of the war in Ukraine.

But don't we want to be climate neutral soon?

Debate on lifetime extension: The nuclear issue that really arises 

Union and FDP are calling for nuclear power plants to be left on the grid longer - the technology neither solves the acute gas problem nor can it make Germany emission-free quickly enough.

Still, there would be an idea to discuss.

stay confident

Yours, Kurt Stukenberg