The last COP in Dubai and the upcoming climate conference in Azerbaijan have drawn significant criticism: Oil and gas states are deemed unsuitable hosts for the most important meeting of global climate diplomacy, a commonly expressed view suggests. Australia and some Pacific states might host COP31 in 2026. Bernhard Pötter explains why the region is a climate policy think tank and what conflicts of interest exist between the potential hosts.
In the USA, significant climate decisions are imminent this year: A Donald Trump election victory would mean a setback for climate action. Less in the public eye is a decision expected from the Supreme Court in May or June that could greatly restrict the powers of government agencies, including in climate action, as Christoph Drösser reports. This could lead to a lot of uncertainty regarding the shaping of regulations. Environmental and climate action decisions by agencies could be much more easily challenged in court if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs.
Due to the holiday on Thursday, the next Climate.Table will be published on Friday.
The visit of German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock to the Indo-Pacific has also drawn attention to where the 2026 UN Climate Conference will be held. While climate diplomats are meeting this year in Baku, Azerbaijan for COP29, and next year in Belem, Brazil for COP30, the host for COP31 in 2026 is yet to be decided. From a climate policy perspective, there are many reasons for choosing Australia as the venue.
The decision will be made within the UN “Western Europe and Others Group“. So far, only two countries have announced their willingness to host COP31: Australia and Turkey. A consensus in the group is needed for the decision.
Originally, Germany also considered co-hosting COP31 with the Czech Republic. However, Germany withdrew in favor of the bid from Canberra. There, the Labor government under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese advocates for a conference together with the Pacific island states, as stated by Foreign Minister Penny Wong. A Pacific COP would take place in a region whose significance as a hotspot and incubator for climate policy is often overlooked:
At first glance, it seems a minor dispute being heard by the US Supreme Court: Two fishing businesses are contesting a requirement to not only carry an inspector from the national regulatory authority to monitor their catch but to also pay 700 dollars per day for this oversight. These inspections are mandated by law, but the fee was set by the authority itself. The plaintiffs argue that the authority had no right to do so.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision, expected before June, is drawing significant attention because its implications extend far beyond the specific cases. If the Court sides with the plaintiffs, it would overturn a decision made in 1984: the “Chevron Deference”. Back then, the issue was about interpreting a law on pollutant emissions and the justices said: If the law underpinning an agency’s action is unclear, ambiguous or incomplete, then courts should not decide on the interpretation, but rather the governmental agencies tasked with implementing the laws, as long as this interpretation is “reasonable” and “permissible”. This doctrine has long been a thorn in the side of large industrial companies. Without “Chevron“, it would be easier to challenge any administrative decision, such as on emission limits, in court.
Globally, there is a dilemma between the legislative powers of parliaments and the complexities of reality. No law can foresee every possible case, so authorities need to fill in the gaps by enacting regulations. Reality is constantly changing, with new toxins identified or pandemics breaking out. A functional executive must be able to act without constantly needing new legislative action.
Thus, reservations about a growing bureaucratic apparatus that writes its own rules and increasingly centralizes power exist worldwide. In the European Union, there are complaints about the Brussels bureaucracy regulating the curvature of cucumbers or the composition of mulled wine at Christmas markets. But perhaps nowhere is the aversion to government institutions as strong as in the US.
“It’s about the narrative that government bureaucracy, the ‘deep state’, suppresses the little guy,” says Jody Freeman, a professor of environmental law at Harvard University, in an interview with Table.Briefings. Freeman, who was an advisor on energy and climate issues under President Obama, is one of the most respected environmental law experts in the US. “The second narrative, especially promoted by some Supreme Court justices: The Executive is assuming too much power, which should belong to Congress, and the Court should restore the balance.” In reality, however, it’s neither about noble constitutional principles nor about the poor fishermen. Conservative lawyers are financially backing this case, including funds from the infamous Koch Industries, to challenge the legitimacy of government institutions and ultimately weaken them.
Particularly the argument that power should be shifted from bureaucrats to elected representatives resonated during the initial three-and-a-half-hour preliminary hearing at the Supreme Court. At least with the conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by President Trump, did not explicitly criticize government agencies but rather the phenomenon of presidents increasingly governing by decree without seeking a congressional majority for their actions. President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement; his successor Biden rejoined. A significant portion of the Biden administration’s climate measures are also based on presidential decrees. “Every four or eight years, when a new administration comes in, the system is shaken,” said Kavanaugh, whether it’s antitrust or environmental law. “That’s not stability.”
To this, legal scholar Freeman counters that Congress certainly has the freedom to pass new laws and restrict the interpretive freedom of agencies. “Congress has many options to take back power if it wants.” However, the US Parliament is a completely dysfunctional legislator, unable to even pass a budget. “The idea that Congress can regularly update laws on environmental protection, regulation of food and drugs, stock markets, and consumer protection whenever a new issue arises – that’s a fantasy. That’s not how a modern economy and society work.”
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan made a similar argument during the hearing. She brought up the example of artificial intelligence – US lawmakers struggle with regulating tech companies. “Congress can barely see a week into the future on this issue, let alone a year or a decade,” she said. “Does Congress want this Court to decide the policy-relevant questions of AI?”
This pointed to a likely consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision: If the justices overturn the Chevron Doctrine, it won’t necessarily lead to Congress passing a series of new environmental and consumer protection laws. Instead, many disputes will initially land before local federal judges, then appellate courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court. Non-directly elected judges will become the deciders on political issues. “It will be very chaotic,” says Freeman, “but the bottom line is that regulation will be made more difficult and the agencies will be crippled – and that’s what they’re after.”
If the Chevron Doctrine falls, then the overall 850 federal judges across the country will have the final say in disputes over environmental law – and depending on their political leanings, the rulings will vary significantly. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing and specifying more than 40 important laws, from the Clean Water Act to the Atomic Energy Act. Some experts fear that large companies might even revisit old procedures to secure more industry-friendly judgments. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) could also be diluted: Its effectiveness depends on the details of the implementing regulations.
However, the process will not be a simple victory for the plaintiffs. Two of the six conservative justices are not yet convinced about revising the 1984 precedent – as the current Court did in the recent decisions on abortion and affirmative action. “How much does this issue really come up in practice?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts. And Amy Coney Barrett, also appointed by Trump, fears a flood of lawsuits if past decisions are also subject to challenge.
Some experts believe it is conceivable that the Supreme Court will not completely discard the Chevron Deference but will set stricter guidelines for judges delegating decisions to agencies. Courts already must verify before such a ruling whether the law actually offers interpretive leeway and whether the agencies’ interpretation is comprehensible. What a weaker form of Chevron might look like is still unclear.
The original 1984 Chevron Doctrine wasn’t really a legal rule, says Freeman, but rather an expression of a fundamental attitude. “It basically tells agencies: We respect you and leave the day-to-day decisions to you. It sets a tone of humility for the lower courts. Now the Supreme Court is ready to throw any modesty overboard and say: All legal questions are our business.”
The attacks on politicians and campaign aides in Dresden have shocked Anna Cavazzini. “I am deeply horrified by these despicable attacks. This violence is an attack on us all and on our democracy,” says the Green European politician, whose electoral districts include Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt. “We will not be intimidated or displaced. Attacking party members destroys democracy. We must never tolerate this.”
Cavazzini was elected to the EU Parliament in 2019, and in 2020 she took over as the chair of the Internal Market Committee (IMCO), which is responsible for harmonized product standards, customs, and consumer protection. Her re-election in the upcoming European elections in June is almost certain: She is running in the third position on the list for Alliance 90/The Greens. The central demand of the Greens in the campaign will be the ambitious implementation of the Green Deal. However, the consensus on the project is crumbling: “It is very possible that the Green Deal will now be buried,” Cavazzini fears. After the EPP supported the project in the first two or three years and only argued over nuances, it joined the “anti-Green Deal choir” of the center-right towards the end of the term.
Cavazzini was born in Hesse in 1982, studied European Studies in Chemnitz and International Relations in Berlin. From 2009 to 2014, she already worked in the EU Parliament, then as a research assistant to Ska Keller. She then worked at the German Foreign Office, for the UN General Assembly, for the campaign platform Campact and for Bread for the World, always focusing on fair trade, human rights and sustainability.
In the current legislative period, Cavazzini, as committee chair and shadow rapporteur, co-negotiated various laws: the EU Supply Chain Law (CSDDD), the ban on products from forced labor, and the Right to Repair Directive. Especially in the field of circular economy, the EU has achieved milestones in the past five years, says the 41-year-old. These included the unified charging cable, the Eco-design Regulation, and the Packaging Ordinance.
Yet, she opposes the “regulatory stop” demanded by the Conservatives and Liberals. “As the EU, we are still not on the 1.5-degree path and are still one of the world’s largest producers of electronic waste,” she explains. Therefore, the upcoming legislative term should focus on identifying gaps. She sees these primarily in imports: “Market surveillance and customs are not keeping up with monitoring that products that do not meet our standards do not end up here in the EU internal market.”
The European Customs Reform aims to close these loopholes by strengthening customs authorities. Unfortunately, the project could not be completed before the elections, says Cavazzini. Unlike Parliament, the Council has not yet adopted its negotiation mandate.
On the 30th anniversary of the EU’s single market, Cavazzini is now taking stock: “Basically, the single market has been a huge success and an engine of integration,” she says. It has led to the removal of many barriers and the creation of more and more uniform product standards, she says. However, the strong focus on removing these hurdles has made the discourse on the single market very one-sided, she explains. “We need to go a step further there,” Cavazzini claims. Harmonization should not come at the expense of local communities, she says, but must ensure human rights and environmental standards.
Moreover, the available tools of the single market would have to be used even more effectively, especially in a time of crises. Two examples: On the one hand, the Green Deal together with its product standards should help to achieve climate targets. On the other, large online groups are to be regulated by the major digital projects DSA and DMA. “Single market policy must also have an even stronger goal of countering these crises,” says Cavazzini.
The MEP is also concerned about the impact of the internal market beyond the EU. Firstly, imported products must also comply with European standards. And secondly, production standards are now also to be regulated more closely via the supply chains. Together with her group, Cavazzini has pushed this issue hard in recent years. As shadow rapporteur, she is currently negotiating the EU Supply Chain Act in the Trade Committee, which is to be voted on at the end of January.
Anna Cavazzini is passionate about climbing. Since being elected to the European Parliament in 2019, she says her skill level has declined. She now manages to get to the climbing gym only two or three times a month. However, in Parliament, she has climbed high. In her electoral district in Saxony, Cavazzini sometimes combines climbing with political events, inviting people in Leipzig for a discussion about Europe while bouldering, or raising awareness about local forest dieback in the Saxon Switzerland area. When she talks with people, she says Brussels still feels very distant. “But the very concrete issues are noticed and resonate well.”
In Saxony, the Green-led Ministry of Europe has also created its own Interrail offer, allowing young people to discover Europe. A cosmopolitan, pro-European attitude still needs to be strengthened here, and that requires a lot of good communication. Yet, through the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, many have realized: “With Europe, we are stronger and can respond to crises more effectively together.” Leonie Düngefeld
The last COP in Dubai and the upcoming climate conference in Azerbaijan have drawn significant criticism: Oil and gas states are deemed unsuitable hosts for the most important meeting of global climate diplomacy, a commonly expressed view suggests. Australia and some Pacific states might host COP31 in 2026. Bernhard Pötter explains why the region is a climate policy think tank and what conflicts of interest exist between the potential hosts.
In the USA, significant climate decisions are imminent this year: A Donald Trump election victory would mean a setback for climate action. Less in the public eye is a decision expected from the Supreme Court in May or June that could greatly restrict the powers of government agencies, including in climate action, as Christoph Drösser reports. This could lead to a lot of uncertainty regarding the shaping of regulations. Environmental and climate action decisions by agencies could be much more easily challenged in court if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs.
Due to the holiday on Thursday, the next Climate.Table will be published on Friday.
The visit of German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock to the Indo-Pacific has also drawn attention to where the 2026 UN Climate Conference will be held. While climate diplomats are meeting this year in Baku, Azerbaijan for COP29, and next year in Belem, Brazil for COP30, the host for COP31 in 2026 is yet to be decided. From a climate policy perspective, there are many reasons for choosing Australia as the venue.
The decision will be made within the UN “Western Europe and Others Group“. So far, only two countries have announced their willingness to host COP31: Australia and Turkey. A consensus in the group is needed for the decision.
Originally, Germany also considered co-hosting COP31 with the Czech Republic. However, Germany withdrew in favor of the bid from Canberra. There, the Labor government under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese advocates for a conference together with the Pacific island states, as stated by Foreign Minister Penny Wong. A Pacific COP would take place in a region whose significance as a hotspot and incubator for climate policy is often overlooked:
At first glance, it seems a minor dispute being heard by the US Supreme Court: Two fishing businesses are contesting a requirement to not only carry an inspector from the national regulatory authority to monitor their catch but to also pay 700 dollars per day for this oversight. These inspections are mandated by law, but the fee was set by the authority itself. The plaintiffs argue that the authority had no right to do so.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision, expected before June, is drawing significant attention because its implications extend far beyond the specific cases. If the Court sides with the plaintiffs, it would overturn a decision made in 1984: the “Chevron Deference”. Back then, the issue was about interpreting a law on pollutant emissions and the justices said: If the law underpinning an agency’s action is unclear, ambiguous or incomplete, then courts should not decide on the interpretation, but rather the governmental agencies tasked with implementing the laws, as long as this interpretation is “reasonable” and “permissible”. This doctrine has long been a thorn in the side of large industrial companies. Without “Chevron“, it would be easier to challenge any administrative decision, such as on emission limits, in court.
Globally, there is a dilemma between the legislative powers of parliaments and the complexities of reality. No law can foresee every possible case, so authorities need to fill in the gaps by enacting regulations. Reality is constantly changing, with new toxins identified or pandemics breaking out. A functional executive must be able to act without constantly needing new legislative action.
Thus, reservations about a growing bureaucratic apparatus that writes its own rules and increasingly centralizes power exist worldwide. In the European Union, there are complaints about the Brussels bureaucracy regulating the curvature of cucumbers or the composition of mulled wine at Christmas markets. But perhaps nowhere is the aversion to government institutions as strong as in the US.
“It’s about the narrative that government bureaucracy, the ‘deep state’, suppresses the little guy,” says Jody Freeman, a professor of environmental law at Harvard University, in an interview with Table.Briefings. Freeman, who was an advisor on energy and climate issues under President Obama, is one of the most respected environmental law experts in the US. “The second narrative, especially promoted by some Supreme Court justices: The Executive is assuming too much power, which should belong to Congress, and the Court should restore the balance.” In reality, however, it’s neither about noble constitutional principles nor about the poor fishermen. Conservative lawyers are financially backing this case, including funds from the infamous Koch Industries, to challenge the legitimacy of government institutions and ultimately weaken them.
Particularly the argument that power should be shifted from bureaucrats to elected representatives resonated during the initial three-and-a-half-hour preliminary hearing at the Supreme Court. At least with the conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by President Trump, did not explicitly criticize government agencies but rather the phenomenon of presidents increasingly governing by decree without seeking a congressional majority for their actions. President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement; his successor Biden rejoined. A significant portion of the Biden administration’s climate measures are also based on presidential decrees. “Every four or eight years, when a new administration comes in, the system is shaken,” said Kavanaugh, whether it’s antitrust or environmental law. “That’s not stability.”
To this, legal scholar Freeman counters that Congress certainly has the freedom to pass new laws and restrict the interpretive freedom of agencies. “Congress has many options to take back power if it wants.” However, the US Parliament is a completely dysfunctional legislator, unable to even pass a budget. “The idea that Congress can regularly update laws on environmental protection, regulation of food and drugs, stock markets, and consumer protection whenever a new issue arises – that’s a fantasy. That’s not how a modern economy and society work.”
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan made a similar argument during the hearing. She brought up the example of artificial intelligence – US lawmakers struggle with regulating tech companies. “Congress can barely see a week into the future on this issue, let alone a year or a decade,” she said. “Does Congress want this Court to decide the policy-relevant questions of AI?”
This pointed to a likely consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision: If the justices overturn the Chevron Doctrine, it won’t necessarily lead to Congress passing a series of new environmental and consumer protection laws. Instead, many disputes will initially land before local federal judges, then appellate courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court. Non-directly elected judges will become the deciders on political issues. “It will be very chaotic,” says Freeman, “but the bottom line is that regulation will be made more difficult and the agencies will be crippled – and that’s what they’re after.”
If the Chevron Doctrine falls, then the overall 850 federal judges across the country will have the final say in disputes over environmental law – and depending on their political leanings, the rulings will vary significantly. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing and specifying more than 40 important laws, from the Clean Water Act to the Atomic Energy Act. Some experts fear that large companies might even revisit old procedures to secure more industry-friendly judgments. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) could also be diluted: Its effectiveness depends on the details of the implementing regulations.
However, the process will not be a simple victory for the plaintiffs. Two of the six conservative justices are not yet convinced about revising the 1984 precedent – as the current Court did in the recent decisions on abortion and affirmative action. “How much does this issue really come up in practice?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts. And Amy Coney Barrett, also appointed by Trump, fears a flood of lawsuits if past decisions are also subject to challenge.
Some experts believe it is conceivable that the Supreme Court will not completely discard the Chevron Deference but will set stricter guidelines for judges delegating decisions to agencies. Courts already must verify before such a ruling whether the law actually offers interpretive leeway and whether the agencies’ interpretation is comprehensible. What a weaker form of Chevron might look like is still unclear.
The original 1984 Chevron Doctrine wasn’t really a legal rule, says Freeman, but rather an expression of a fundamental attitude. “It basically tells agencies: We respect you and leave the day-to-day decisions to you. It sets a tone of humility for the lower courts. Now the Supreme Court is ready to throw any modesty overboard and say: All legal questions are our business.”
The attacks on politicians and campaign aides in Dresden have shocked Anna Cavazzini. “I am deeply horrified by these despicable attacks. This violence is an attack on us all and on our democracy,” says the Green European politician, whose electoral districts include Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt. “We will not be intimidated or displaced. Attacking party members destroys democracy. We must never tolerate this.”
Cavazzini was elected to the EU Parliament in 2019, and in 2020 she took over as the chair of the Internal Market Committee (IMCO), which is responsible for harmonized product standards, customs, and consumer protection. Her re-election in the upcoming European elections in June is almost certain: She is running in the third position on the list for Alliance 90/The Greens. The central demand of the Greens in the campaign will be the ambitious implementation of the Green Deal. However, the consensus on the project is crumbling: “It is very possible that the Green Deal will now be buried,” Cavazzini fears. After the EPP supported the project in the first two or three years and only argued over nuances, it joined the “anti-Green Deal choir” of the center-right towards the end of the term.
Cavazzini was born in Hesse in 1982, studied European Studies in Chemnitz and International Relations in Berlin. From 2009 to 2014, she already worked in the EU Parliament, then as a research assistant to Ska Keller. She then worked at the German Foreign Office, for the UN General Assembly, for the campaign platform Campact and for Bread for the World, always focusing on fair trade, human rights and sustainability.
In the current legislative period, Cavazzini, as committee chair and shadow rapporteur, co-negotiated various laws: the EU Supply Chain Law (CSDDD), the ban on products from forced labor, and the Right to Repair Directive. Especially in the field of circular economy, the EU has achieved milestones in the past five years, says the 41-year-old. These included the unified charging cable, the Eco-design Regulation, and the Packaging Ordinance.
Yet, she opposes the “regulatory stop” demanded by the Conservatives and Liberals. “As the EU, we are still not on the 1.5-degree path and are still one of the world’s largest producers of electronic waste,” she explains. Therefore, the upcoming legislative term should focus on identifying gaps. She sees these primarily in imports: “Market surveillance and customs are not keeping up with monitoring that products that do not meet our standards do not end up here in the EU internal market.”
The European Customs Reform aims to close these loopholes by strengthening customs authorities. Unfortunately, the project could not be completed before the elections, says Cavazzini. Unlike Parliament, the Council has not yet adopted its negotiation mandate.
On the 30th anniversary of the EU’s single market, Cavazzini is now taking stock: “Basically, the single market has been a huge success and an engine of integration,” she says. It has led to the removal of many barriers and the creation of more and more uniform product standards, she says. However, the strong focus on removing these hurdles has made the discourse on the single market very one-sided, she explains. “We need to go a step further there,” Cavazzini claims. Harmonization should not come at the expense of local communities, she says, but must ensure human rights and environmental standards.
Moreover, the available tools of the single market would have to be used even more effectively, especially in a time of crises. Two examples: On the one hand, the Green Deal together with its product standards should help to achieve climate targets. On the other, large online groups are to be regulated by the major digital projects DSA and DMA. “Single market policy must also have an even stronger goal of countering these crises,” says Cavazzini.
The MEP is also concerned about the impact of the internal market beyond the EU. Firstly, imported products must also comply with European standards. And secondly, production standards are now also to be regulated more closely via the supply chains. Together with her group, Cavazzini has pushed this issue hard in recent years. As shadow rapporteur, she is currently negotiating the EU Supply Chain Act in the Trade Committee, which is to be voted on at the end of January.
Anna Cavazzini is passionate about climbing. Since being elected to the European Parliament in 2019, she says her skill level has declined. She now manages to get to the climbing gym only two or three times a month. However, in Parliament, she has climbed high. In her electoral district in Saxony, Cavazzini sometimes combines climbing with political events, inviting people in Leipzig for a discussion about Europe while bouldering, or raising awareness about local forest dieback in the Saxon Switzerland area. When she talks with people, she says Brussels still feels very distant. “But the very concrete issues are noticed and resonate well.”
In Saxony, the Green-led Ministry of Europe has also created its own Interrail offer, allowing young people to discover Europe. A cosmopolitan, pro-European attitude still needs to be strengthened here, and that requires a lot of good communication. Yet, through the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, many have realized: “With Europe, we are stronger and can respond to crises more effectively together.” Leonie Düngefeld
