来源：《洛杉矶时报》
原文刊登日期：2022年6月30日
At a moment when the world should be racing to prevent the worst effects of global warming, the Supreme Court just made it harder for the U.S. to cut carbon emissions from power plants quickly and cost effectively.
在全世界都应该竞相防止全球变暖的最恶劣影响之际，最高法院刚刚让美国更难快速、经济高效地减少发电厂的碳排放。
The court said in its 6-3 decision Thursday that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority in trying to develop sweeping regulations to reduce climate-warming pollutants.
美国最高法院周四以6比3的结果裁定，美国环境保护局在试图制定全面的法规以减少导致气候变暖的污染物方面越权。
To be clear, the ruling didn’t remove the EPA’s authority to cut carbon emissions from individual power plants, which are responsible for about a quarter of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The agency still can — and should — require that power plants install equipment that can ratchet down pollution. But the decision limits the EPA’s ability to enact more far-reaching and creative regulatory programs affecting the power sector.
需要说明的是，这项裁决并没有取消环保局削减个别发电厂碳排放的权力，发电厂占美国温室气体排放的四分之一左右。该机构仍然可以——也应该——要求发电厂安装能够降低污染的设备。但这一决定限制了环保局制定影响电力行业更深远和更有创意的监管计划的能力。
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said Congress didn’t give the EPA the power to develop regulations that could shift the power sector from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Such major decisions and transformational programs should come with clear direction from Congress, he argued.
由首席大法官小约翰·罗伯茨撰写的多数意见书称，国会没有赋予环保局制定法规的权力，将电力部门从化石燃料转向可再生能源。他说，这样的重大决定和转型计划应该有国会的明确指示。
But in a dissent signed by the court’s three liberal judges, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority was ignoring Congress’ intent when lawmakers passed the Clean Air Act in the 1970s — which was to empower the experts to come up with regulatory systems that can evolve over time to reduce emissions in the most cost-efficient, protective way possible. Instead, she argued, the court blocked regulators from carrying out their mandate.
但在最高法院三名自由派法官签署的异议书中，大法官埃琳娜·卡根写道，最高法院多数派忽视了国会上世纪70年代通过《清洁空气法》时的意图——该法案授权专家们提出可以随着时间推移而演变的监管体系，以最具成本效益、最具保护性的方式减少排放。她认为，相反，最高法院阻止了监管机构执行它们获得的授权。
“Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” Kagan wrote. “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”
卡根写道：“无论最高法院可能知道什么，它都不知道如何应对气候变化。让我们说一句显而易见的话：这里的利害关系很大。然而，最高法院今天阻止了国会授权的机构采取行动来遏制发电厂的二氧化碳排放。最高法院任命自己——而不是国会或专家机构——为气候政策的决策者。我想不出还有什么比这更可怕的事情了。”
She’s right. The stakes are terrifyingly high. The burning of fossil fuels and other human activity have already warmed Earth by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, compared with preindustrial levels. Climate change has worsened wildfires, droughts, air pollution and heat waves; caused species to go extinct and trees to die en masse; swallowed up coastal habitat; reduced crop yields; increased hunger and shrunk glaciers and other crucial water supplies.
她是对的。利害关系大得吓人。与工业化前的水平相比，化石燃料的燃烧和其他人类活动已经使地球变暖了约2华氏度。气候变化加剧了野火、干旱、空气污染和热浪；导致物种灭绝，树木集体死亡；沿海栖息地被吞噬；作物产量下降；饥饿加剧，冰川和其他重要水源萎缩。
The world can still avert the worst consequences of the overheating of our planet — mass extinction and catastrophically severe droughts, floods, heat waves and sea level rise — if emissions are cut in half by 2030. But the United States, the world’s biggest polluter historically, has moved far too slowly to end the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels and transition to clean, renewable energy.
如果到2030年排放量减少一半，世界仍然可以避免地球过热的最严重后果——大规模物种灭绝和灾难性的严重干旱、洪水、热浪和海平面上升。但是，作为世界历史上最大的污染国，美国在结束对化石燃料的依赖，向清洁、可再生能源过渡方面进展太慢。