来源：《自然》
原文刊登日期：2022年6月30日
The US Supreme Court has limited the regulatory tools that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, dealing a massive blow to US President Joe Biden’s climate agenda. Academics and environmentalists were disappointed with the loss of authority, as well as the precedent that it could set for the EPA — and potentially for other US agencies trying to tackle important societal issues in innovative ways.
美国最高法院限制了环境保护局(EPA)用于遏制温室气体排放的监管手段，这对美国总统乔·拜登的气候议程造成了巨大打击。学术界和环保人士对环保局失去的权力感到失望，也对该判决可能为美国环保局——以及其他试图以创新方式解决重要社会问题的美国政府机构——开创的先例感到失望。
“It’s a very dangerous decision,” says Lisa Heinzerling, a legal expert at Georgetown University in Washington DC. “As an agency, if you are trying to tackle an important new question, and you’re trying to do it in a creative way, then this case should give you pause.”
“这是一个非常危险的判决，”华盛顿特区乔治敦大学的法律专家丽莎·海因泽林说。“作为一个政府机构，如果你试图解决一个重要的新问题，并试图以一种创造性的方式来解决它，那么这个案件应该让你三思。”
The case the court ruled on, West Virginia v. the US Environmental Protection Agency, was the most consequential climate litigation in the United States in 15 years. It was also the first major opportunity for the court’s new conservative majority to make its mark on US environmental law. The ruling prohibits the EPA from crafting broad regulations to drive the US power industry away from coal and towards cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar.
本次最高法院裁决的西维吉尼亚州诉美国环境保护局案是美国15年来最重要的气候诉讼案。这也是最高法院的新保守派多数在美国环境法上留下自己印记的第一个重要机会。该裁决禁止美国环保局制定广泛的法规，迫使美国电力行业摆脱煤炭，转向风能和太阳能等更清洁的能源。
The lawsuit centred on the technical details of how the EPA should regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Anticipating how the Biden administration would try to regulate the power industry, the coalition of Republican-governed states and coal companies that supported the lawsuit, led by West Virginia, sought a pre-emptive ban on broad regulations that would, in effect, overhaul the US power industry. They argued that the 1970 Clean Air Act limits the agency’s regulatory power to the scale of individual power plants.
这起诉讼集中在环境保护局应该如何监管温室气体排放的技术细节上。支持这起诉讼的由共和党执政的各州和煤炭公司组成的联盟(以西弗吉尼亚州为首)预见到拜登(Biden)将如何监管电力行业，因此寻求先发制人，禁止实施实际上会彻底改革美国电力行业的广泛监管。他们认为，1970年的《清洁空气法》将环保局的监管权力限制在单个发电厂的规模之内。
In a 6–3 ruling, all the conservative judges sided with the plaintiffs, and ruled that the agency had indeed overstepped its authority in drafting earlier climate regulations. Regulating the US power industry falls under the US Congress’s jurisdiction, not the EPA’s, according to the decision.
在以6票赞成、3票反对的结果做出的裁决中，所有保守派大法官都站在原告一边，裁定环保局在起草早期的气候法规时确实越权了。根据该裁决，美国电力行业的监管属于美国国会的管辖范围，而不是EPA的管辖范围。
Capping carbon dioxide emissions to force a national shift away from coal towards cleaner energy sources might be a “sensible” climate solution, the justices wrote in the majority decision — but it is “not plausible” that the US Congress meant to grant such authority to the EPA when it wrote the Clean Air Act. “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself.”
大法官们在多数裁决中写道，限制二氧化碳排放以迫使全国从煤炭转向更清洁的能源可能是一个“明智”的气候解决方案，但美国国会在起草《清洁空气法》时打算授予美国环保局这样的权力，这是“不合理的”。“如此重大和重要的决定取决于国会自己。”
The court’s ruling could make it much harder for the Biden administration — and its successors — to curb US greenhouse gases as promised under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. And that spells bad news for the planet, because the United States is both one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world and a central player among the countries tackling global warming, says Sabrina McCormick, a sociologist who studies public health at the George Washington University. “This decision creates a critical gap in the global landscape to address catastrophic climate change.”
最高法院的裁决可能会让拜登政府及其继任者更难兑现2015年巴黎气候协议中承诺的遏制美国温室气体排放的承诺。乔治华盛顿大学研究公共卫生的社会学家塞布丽娜·麦考密克说，这对地球来说是个坏消息，因为美国既是世界上最大的温室气体排放国之一，也是应对全球变暖的国家中的核心角色。“这一决定在应对灾难性气候变化的全球格局中造成了一个关键缺口。”