来源：《新科学家》
原文见刊日期：2022年7月9日
On 30 June, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that could set back efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and more widely limit the work of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The ruling looked at a case between the state of West Virginia and the EPA with roots in a complex legal fight over who has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
6月30日，美国最高法院发布了一项裁决，该裁决可能会阻碍减少温室气体排放的努力，并更广泛地限制环境保护局（EPA）的工作。这项裁决针对西弗吉尼亚州和美国环保局之间的一个案件，该案件源于一场复杂的法律斗争，即谁有权监管发电厂的温室气体排放。
In the 1960s, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, giving the EPA authority to enforce regulations to improve air quality. In 2015, the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan set guidelines for states around carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
在20世纪60年代，国会通过了《清洁空气法》，授权EPA执行法规以改善空气质量。2015年，奥巴马政府的清洁电力计划为各州制定了有关发电厂二氧化碳排放的指导方针。
Some states objected to the plan, setting up a political and legal back and forth across the Trump and Biden administrations that culminated in coal companies and coal-producing states, led by West Virginia, petitioning the Supreme Court to rule on the powers granted to the EPA by the Clean Air Act.
一些州反对该计划，导致特朗普和拜登两届政府对这一问题在政治上和法律上反复，最终导致了以西弗吉尼亚州为首的煤炭公司和煤炭生产州，请求最高法院对《清洁空气法》授予环境保护局的权力作出裁决。
In the 6-3 opinion, chief justice John Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give the EPA clear congressional authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions at power plants by making sweeping changes to entire grids, as opposed to requiring individual emitters to make reductions.
在6-3的意见书中，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨写道，《清洁空气法》没有赋予环保局明确的国会授权，可以通过对整个电网进行全面改革来规范发电厂的温室气体排放，而不是要求个别排放企业减少排放。
In her dissenting opinion, Elena Kagan, wrote that the ruling “deprives EPA of the power needed – and the power granted – to curb the emission of greenhouse gases”.
埃琳娜·卡根持不同意见，她写道，这项裁决“剥夺了EPA遏制温室气体排放所需的权力——也是被授予的权力”。
In short, it could have a big impact, but not as big as some had feared. The ruling is likely to stymie the Biden administration’s plans to make US electricity generation carbon-free by 2035. However, it falls far short of limiting the EPA’s discretion to regulate on all issues.
简而言之，最高法院的判决可能会产生很大的影响，但不像一些人担心的那么大。这一裁决可能会阻碍拜登(Biden)政府在2035年前实现美国发电无碳化的计划。然而，该判决远远没有限制环境保护局在所有问题上的自由裁量权。
While the ruling limits the EPA’s authority, Congress could still pass legislation on greenhouse gas emissions or other environmental issues, or grant the agency that authority. But given current congressional gridlock, that is unlikely to happen any time soon.
虽然这项裁决限制了环保局的权力，但国会仍然可以通过有关温室气体排放或其他环境问题的立法，或授予EPA这样的权力。但鉴于目前国会的僵局，这种情况不太可能很快发生。
“The ruling curtails EPA’s authority to regulate pollutants on the basis of protection of the Earth’s climate and will result in unconscionable delays, given that Congress is not poised to address this issue,” says Lynn Goldman at George Washington University.
乔治华盛顿大学的林恩•戈德曼表示：“这项裁决削弱了环保局在保护地球气候的基础上监管污染物的权力，鉴于国会尚未准备好解决这个问题，它将导致违背良心的拖延。”
Conservative lawyers point out that the EPA has other avenues to control greenhouse gas emissions, for instance through standards for exhaust emissions, or by setting rules for individual power plants. “There are many, many other steps the EPA already has the statutory authority to take to reduce emissions,” says Joseph Bingham, an attorney at Mountain States Legal Foundation. The agency can still regulate carbon dioxide as it would any other pollutant, he says.
保守派律师指出，EPA还有其他途径来控制温室气体排放，比如制定废气排放标准，或者为个别发电厂制定规则。山地州法律基金会的律师约瑟夫•宾厄姆表示：“环保局已经拥有法定权力采取许多其他措施来减少排放。”他说，环保局仍然可以像管理其他污染物一样管理二氧化碳。
It is also worth pointing out that reductions are possible without regulations. The emissions targets set in the Clean Power Plan, for instance, were met a decade ahead of schedule even though the plan never came into effect.
同样值得指出的是，在没有管制的情况下，也有可能实现减排。例如，《清洁电力计划》中设定的排放目标提前了十年实现，尽管该计划从未生效。