NEW ORLEANS (Transatlantic Today) – An appeals court has resurrected a Biden administration initiative to account for the potential harm caused by greenhouse gas pollution when enacting regulations for polluting companies.
Last month, a federal court in Louisiana halted the so-called “social cost of carbon” scheme, claiming it would impose costly regulatory constraints and raise energy prices. However, in a ruling issued Wednesday, a panel of 3 judges on the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans uniformly halted the lower court’s decision, allowing the administration to keep applying the policy while the matter is being resolved.
The panel concluded that any regulatory costs imposed by the program are hypothetical at this time and that Louisiana as well as other states contesting the policy lacked standing to litigate.
The financial impact of carbon aims to quantify the harm caused by each additional tonne of greenhouse gasses released into the environment. According to ABC NEWS, the estimated cost will be used to design future standards for gas and oil extraction, automobiles, and other businesses, with a larger estimate justifying more strict laws.
On his first day in the office, President Joe Biden signed an order restoring the cost estimate for carbon emissions to around $51 per tonne, after the Trump government had decreased it to around $7 or less per tonne. Former President Donald Trump’s assessment solely included harm experienced in the United States, rather than the worldwide damage included in higher estimates given under the Obama administration.
Republicans and business organizations have disputed the veracity of the cost estimate’s complicated economic models. They contend that focusing on potential climate harm will stifle the economy, especially the energy sector.
Under Biden, the carbon estimated cost had not been used much, but it is now being evaluated in a forthcoming environmental assessment of oil and gas leasing sales in western states. In reaction to a February 11 judgment that struck down the government’s social cost of carbon scheme, the administration postponed those sales as well as other energy-related initiatives.
The regulation had been challenged by a group of Republican attorneys general headed by Louisiana’s Jeff Landry. Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Texas, South Dakota, Wyoming, and West Virginia are among the other states that have filed lawsuits.
Judges Leslie Southwick, nominated by President George W. Bush, and Gregg Costa and James Graves, both nominated by President Barack Obama, made the decision on Wednesday.
The government is examining the decision, according to a spokesman for the US Department of interior.
The ruling would be challenged to the whole 17-member 5th Circuit, according to Landry’s office.
The White House has been working on an update to its climate damage estimate, which is projected to rise, possibly drastically.
The circuit court verdict, according to economist Steve Rose, does not answer doubts regarding the efficacy of the complicated models employed to calculate damages.
However, Max Sarinsky, a law professor at New York University Law school, believes that the administration’s effort to consider the climate implications of measures like the planned gas and oil lease auction must account for future costs from emissions.
Environmentalists welcomed the decision.
The decision, according to Earthjustice senior attorney Hana Vizcarra, puts the government back on track to confront and analyze climate change.
