来源：《美联社新闻》
原文刊登日期：2022年7月1日
In a blow to the fight against climate change, the Supreme Court on Thursday limited how the nation’s main anti-air pollution law can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
周四，最高法院限制了美国主要的反空气污染法在减少发电厂二氧化碳排放方面的应用，这对应对气候变化的斗争是一个打击。
By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming.
最高法院以6票赞成、3票反对、保守派占多数的结果表示，《清洁空气法》没有赋予环境保护局广泛的权力，来监管导致全球变暖的发电厂的温室气体排放。
The decision, said environmental advocates and dissenting liberal justices, was a major step in the wrong direction at a time of increasing environmental damage attributable to climate change amid dire warnings about the future.
环保倡导者和持不同意见的自由派大法官表示，在气候变化对环境造成日益严重的破坏、对未来发出可怕警告之际，这一决定是朝着错误方向迈出的重要一步。
The court’s ruling could complicate the administration’s plans to combat climate change. Its detailed proposal to regulate power plant emissions is expected by the end of the year. President Joe Biden aims to cut the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade and to have an emissions-free power sector by 2035. Power plants account for roughly 30% of carbon dioxide output.
最高法院的裁决可能会使政府应对气候变化的计划复杂化。其规范发电厂排放的详细提案有望在今年年底前出台。美国总统拜登的目标是在2030年前将美国的温室气体排放量减少一半，并在2035年前实现电力行业零排放。发电厂约占二氧化碳排放量的30%。
“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the court.
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在最高法院意见书中写道：“将二氧化碳排放量限制在一定水平，迫使全国范围内停止使用煤炭发电，这可能是一个‘解决当前危机的明智办法’”。
But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this subject. “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.
但是罗伯茨写道，《清洁空气法案》并没有赋予环保局这样做的权力，国会必须就这一问题明确表态。他写道：“如此重大和重要的决定取决于国会本身，或依据国会明确委托行事的机构。”
In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision strips the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.” Kagan said the stakes in the case are high. She said, “The Court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”
在一份不同意见书中，大法官埃琳娜·卡根写道，该决定剥夺了国会赋予环保局应对“我们这个时代最紧迫的环境挑战”的权力。卡根说，这起案件关系重大。她说：“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。”
Biden, in a statement, called the ruling “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” He said he would “not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.”
拜登在一份声明中称，这项裁决是“另一个旨在让我们的国家倒退的毁灭性决定”。他说，他“在利用我的合法权力保护公众健康和应对气候危机方面不会手软”。
And EPA head Michael Regan said his agency will move forward with a rule to impose environmental standards on the energy sector.
美国环境保护局局长迈克尔·里根表示，环保局将制定一项规则，对能源行业实施环境标准。
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led the legal challenge to EPA authority, said the “EPA can no longer sidestep Congress to exercise broad regulatory power that would radically transform the nation’s energy grid and force states to fundamentally shift their energy portfolios away from coal-fired generation.”
西弗吉尼亚州总检察长帕特里克·莫里西领导了对环境保护局的法律挑战，他表示“环境保护局再也不能回避国会行使广泛的监管权，环保局想从根本上改变美国的能源网络，迫使各州从根本上改变其能源组合，不再使用燃煤发电。”