{"id":954,"date":"2024-01-15T03:22:32","date_gmt":"2024-01-15T03:22:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=954"},"modified":"2024-01-15T03:27:19","modified_gmt":"2024-01-15T03:27:19","slug":"criminal-justice_detail_7","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=954","title":{"rendered":"CRIMINAL JUSTICE_DETAIL_7"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\">CRIMINAL JUSTICE<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\"><strong>OCTOBER 13, 2023<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Biden\u2019s Crucial Climate Metric<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Administration had directed federal agencies to consider \u201csocial cost\u201d of emissions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>KATE YODER<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"768\" height=\"432\" src=\"http:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/supreme-court-building-social-cost-of-carbon-copy.webp\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-951\" style=\"width:760px;height:auto\" srcset=\"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/supreme-court-building-social-cost-of-carbon-copy.webp 768w, https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/supreme-court-building-social-cost-of-carbon-copy-300x169.webp 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><strong>Douglas Rissing\/Getty\/Grist<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<p><strong>The Supreme Court&nbsp;<\/strong>rejected a challenge to the \u201csocial cost of carbon,\u201d one of the most important calculations in US climate policy, on Tuesday. The controversial metric attempts to quantify the hidden price of emitting carbon dioxide, from flood damage to health effects. The court\u2019s surprise decision sets the stage for the Biden administration to broaden the metric\u2019s use across federal agencies when formulating climate-related regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One of President Joe Biden\u2019s very first executive orders in January 2021 directed agencies to recalculate the social cost of carbon\u2014currently placed at $51 a ton while the government finalizes its revised estimate. In the meantime, Republican state attorneys general have been flinging lawsuits at the administration in an attempt to block its ability to use the metric in evaluating regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But their plans were thwarted by Tuesday\u2019s&nbsp;order&nbsp;from the conservative-dominated Supreme Court. Without any explanation, the justices declined to hear&nbsp;<em>Missouri v. Biden<\/em>, a case in which 12 states alleged that Biden\u2019s executive order&nbsp;violated the constitutional separation of powers. A federal appeals court ruled last year that the states suing over the use of the estimate&nbsp;didn\u2019t have legal standing&nbsp;because they couldn\u2019t show they\u2019d been harmed by the way agencies had applied the metric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It\u2019s the second time the Supreme Court has declined to take up a challenge to the social cost of carbon. Last year, the justices&nbsp;blocked a similar request&nbsp;led by Louisiana.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The social cost of carbon is likely to have cascading effects on agriculture, power plants, oil and gas leases, and more. That\u2019s because federal agencies have to weigh the costs and benefits of any regulation they adopt. If the government accounts for the true costs of emitting greenhouse gases\u2014lost lives, dying crops, homes swallowed by rising seas\u2014then decisions that result in more carbon emissions start to look a lot more expensive, while those that reduce emissions look like a smart deal.The Trump administration, in typical fashion, had slashed the number down to a couple bucks per ton.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Obama administration, the first to require agencies to use this metric in assessing rules, placed the social cost of carbon at&nbsp;$43 a ton\u2014a move that helped justify things like&nbsp;stronger emissions standards&nbsp;for vehicles. The Trump administration calculated the number differently and, in typical fashion, slashed the number down to a couple bucks per ton. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed $190 a ton, nearly f<em>our times higher<\/em>&nbsp;than the estimate the Biden administration currently uses. (The EPA\u2019s number is in line with&nbsp;estimates from independent experts.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Because the social cost of carbon is so influential in developing climate policy, some Republicans consider it a paragon of the \u201cradical climate agenda.\u201d In response to the Supreme Court\u2019s rejection of Missouri\u2019s challenge, Andrew Bailey, the state\u2019s attorney general,&nbsp;vowed to&nbsp;\u201ccontinue to combat government overreach at every turn.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Analysts say the fight isn\u2019t over yet. In a note to clients, the research firm ClearView Energy Partners said the ruling doesn\u2019t preclude states\u2014or anyone else\u2014from suing over specific agency actions and rules that rely on the social cost of carbon,&nbsp;E&amp;E News reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In recent months, the White House announced that it was considering applying the social cost of carbon more broadly across agencies, in everything from&nbsp;annual budgets and permitting decisions&nbsp;to&nbsp;fines for violating environmental regulations. It represents a sea change in how the government approaches climate policy: For decades, policies to reduce emissions had been&nbsp;cast as an economic burden, a narrative propelled by oil industry-backed studies that made legislation look prohibitively expensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Now, the frame has switched: Carbon emissions are viewed as the economic harm, and climate policy is the balm.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Biden\u2019s Crucial Climate Metric The Supreme Court&nbsp;rejected a challenge to the \u201csocial cost of carbon,\u201d one of the most important calculations in US climate policy, on Tuesday. The controversial metric attempts to quantify the hidden price of emitting carbon dioxide, from flood damage to health effects. The court\u2019s surprise decision&hellip;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=954\" class=\"\" rel=\"bookmark\">Read More &raquo;<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">CRIMINAL JUSTICE_DETAIL_7<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":477,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"on","_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"_ti_tpc_template_sync":false,"_ti_tpc_template_id":"","footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/954"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=954"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/954\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":961,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/954\/revisions\/961"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/477"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}