UN Court of Justice Under Scrutiny over Strong-smelling Decision
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the leadership of newly appointed chief Lee Zeldin, has announced a decision to reverse the 2009 determination that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. This move is expected to lead to a significant weakening or rollback of nationwide emissions standards, particularly those implemented during the Biden administration [2][3][4].
The EPA's decision marks a departure from the nationwide emissions standards established during the Obama administration, which were based on scientific evidence and a Supreme Court ruling. These standards were designed to regulate emissions from industry, power plants, and vehicle traffic [1].
The EPA's decision is seen as a rejection of international guidelines and international law, potentially straining relations between the United States and the international community on climate change issues. Critics characterize Zeldin’s plan as reckless and dangerous, indicating widespread concern that it undermines both domestic climate progress and international commitments [2].
In the absence of nationwide emissions standards, everything will depend on the goodwill of individual states. This shift towards state-level responsibility for emissions regulation could weaken U.S. leadership on climate change, impeding cooperation in global climate action. The move may reduce the credibility of the U.S. as a partner in international climate agreements, potentially hindering efforts to meet or enhance nationally determined contributions under frameworks such as the Paris Agreement [2].
The EPA's decision not to consider the fact that emissions don't respect borders underscores the Trump administration's commitment to a more lax approach to climate change regulation compared to international standards. This decision is metaphorically described as flipping the bird to the UN court and the global community [5].
The advisory opinion in The Hague emphasized states' obligation to pursue ambitious climate action. However, the EPA's decision to reverse its determination about greenhouse gases could have far-reaching implications for the regulation of emissions in the United States. If these emissions standards are scrapped, they will no longer be enforced nationwide, making it challenging for the U.S. to meet its climate targets [1].
This move by the EPA is described as "the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States" [5]. The EPA's decision on greenhouse gases is also referred to as a "dagger to the heart of the climate change religion" [6].
References:
- The New York Times
- The Guardian
- The Washington Post
- Bloomberg
- The Wall Street Journal
- The Hill
- The EPA's decision to reverse the 2009 determination on greenhouse gases not being a threat to public health is seen as a departure from environmental science and international law, with critics labeling it reckless and dangerous.
- The absence of nationwide emissions standards, as a result of the EPA's decision, may weaken U.S. leadership on climate change and hinder international cooperation, potentially diminishing the country's credibility as a partner in climate agreements such as the Paris Agreement.
- The decision by the EPA to rollback emissions standards is met with general news headlines, including descriptions like "the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States" and "a dagger to the heart of the climate change religion."
