Focus on Greenhouse Gas Regulation
As expected, in West Virginia v. United States.EPA, the Supreme Court continues its radical right-wing and ideological efforts to limit the regulatory powers of federal executive agencies. In a series of dire decisions, this one was unfortunate but far from fatal for the effort to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Fortunately for our planet, fossil fuels are already more expensive than renewable energy. And, this price gap will only continue to widen. The sun is free and will outlive our species. Fossil fuels are finite and must be extracted, transported and burned from the ground. Every step pollutes and costs money. In contrast, solar cells, wind power and battery technology continue to advance, becoming more reliable, efficient and less expensive. In the long run, there is no doubt that renewable energy will drive fossil fuels out of the market. The problem is that climate change requires a faster shift away from fossil fuels.
The court’s ill-advised decision will set a precedent that will undermine important efforts to promote American health and welfare, but in the case of climate change, it will only force another approach — one I favor.instead of force Utilities are switching away from fossil fuels, and the federal government should pay them to do so. Instead of raising energy prices, we should subsidize it – but limit subsidies for renewable energy. One could argue that the right and the fossil fuel industry will use their typical tactics of political disinformation to fight such subsidies; our job, then, is to paint them as supporting higher energy prices.
Subsidies can take the form of long-term loans for new renewable energy generation, storage and transmission facilities, repaid by the difference between fossil-fuel-based electricity prices and lower renewable energy tariffs. Renewables are cheaper, and with federal funding, the difference can be used to pay for a new, modern, renewable-based power system. Utility bills will be charged for the capital cost of renewable energy construction until the debt is repaid.
Traditional approaches to coercive behavior change—command-and-control regulation or taxation and user fees—have the effect of raising prices when coercive behavior occurs. The benefit of this approach is by enforcing mass coverage. Switching to subsidies reduces political friction and, if enacted by Congress, would not be unconstitutional. But utilities may still refuse to accept subsidies. We saw this with Obamacare, where states run by conservative ideologues refused to accept federal subsidies to help insure people who couldn’t afford health care. Perhaps these radical right-wing state governments would rather lower energy prices for everyone than have the federal government subsidize health care for their poor citizens.
The drama and extreme nature of the action drew attention after headlines last week suggested the Supreme Court had dealt a fatal blow to climate regulation.According to Adam Liptak in New York Times:
“Thursday Supreme Court Limits EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, dealing a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to tackle climate change. The vote was 6-3, with the court’s three liberal justices dissenting, saying the majority had stripped the EPA of “the power to address the most pressing environmental challenges of our time.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who writes for the majority, makes only cursory mentions of the harm caused by climate change. Justice Elena Kagan opened her dissent with a lengthy essay detailing the devastation facing the planet, including hurricanes, floods, famine, coastal erosion, mass migration and political crises. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the issue in this case concerns the scope of the language of the Clean Air Act. Under it, Congress did not explicitly give the agency broad powers to regulate the energy industry, he wrote.
Roberts and his colleagues must be reading a different Clean Air Act than Congress enacted because, in fact, it Do Provides “full authority”. Americans saw the smog in Los Angeles and gave the government the power to clean it up. Still, with my interpretation of this terrible decision, the EPA can still regulate CO2 emissions from individual power plants. The people who wrote the Clean Air Act knew that technology would evolve in ways they couldn’t predict, and left it to the EPA to respond to new threats as they emerged.as I wrote A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court’s impact on climate change may have been far less than its impact on the more complex, technological realms that lawmakers struggled to understand. The court’s radical, extreme views preclude proper delegation of technical decision-making from elected officials to institutional experts. Climate change is easier to understand than issues like genetic engineering or social media algorithms. The ruling reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the dangers of modern technology.
Despite the ideological stupidity of the Supreme Court, there are many ways to control greenhouse gases beyond what the EPA now envisions. Certainly requires a bit of creativity and a fulcrum from the approach rejected by the courts. Instead of focusing on policies to reduce climate change or greenhouse gas pollution, we should support the modernization of the energy system. Make it more efficient, resilient and reliable, and power it with renewable energy. If you have a home system and the grid is your backup, you may never lose power and your energy costs will go down. Reducing greenhouse gases and pollution from fossil fuel extraction would be a pleasant side effect of this more technologically advanced energy system.
A lower-cost, more reliable energy system would have universal appeal. You don’t need to care about the greenhouse gas reduction policies that support this goal. The importance of electricity in our daily lives has brought this issue to the fore. Cooling, internet, smartphones, televisions, computers, refrigeration and, in some cases, home heating and hot water all require electricity. More and more of our time is spent leveraging these technologies. For modern life, electricity is almost (but not quite) as important as food and water. If you think I’m wrong, visit a teen’s home that lacks Wi-Fi or cell coverage during a power outage. This is not a pretty photo.
While the Supreme Court has gone down a dangerous path, I think the headlines that climate policy is dead are incorrect. The time frame for this transition needs to be addressed more realistically than it has so far. We are obsessed with fossil fuels, and all the political will in the world can only play a role in accelerating the transition to renewable energy. This change takes time, and we need to deal with it with determination, creativity and flexibility.
Reading the headlines and listening to environmental advocates, I sometimes think that reactions to these setbacks only contribute to the polarizing good/bad guy mentality that plagues our politics. This Supreme Court, like the one Roosevelt faced during the New Deal, is overstepping its powers and undermining its own legitimacy. While Roosevelt’s court-packing tactics failed, his attack on the Supreme Court could lead to a more moderate decision. President Biden needs to study Roosevelt and the courts’ attacks on the New Deal and use the presidency to fight back. Although he did not have Roosevelt’s Congressional majority, public support for the right to choose, to breathe clean air, and to reduce extreme weather events remains strong and can be mobilized.
Supreme Court in West Virginia v. United States.EPA It reinforces the sense of dysfunction in our national government. Action needs to focus on state and local governments and strong companies and institutions to continue the transition to environmental sustainability.
