拜登政府加速批准潔淨能源申請

The Biden administration released rules designed to speed up permits for clean energy while requiring federal agencies to more heavily weigh damaging effects on the climate and on low-income communities before approving projects like highways and oil wells.

拜登政府發布旨在加速潔淨能源許可的規定，同時要求聯邦政府機構在批准公路或油井等項目前，更著重考量對於氣候及低收入社區的有害影響。

As part of a deal to raise the country’s debt limit last year, Congress required changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, a 54-year-old bedrock law that requires the government to consider environmental effects and to seek public input before approving any project that necessitates federal permits.

作為去年為提高國家債務上限所做協議一部分，國會要求修改施行54年的基礎法律「國家環境政策法」，該法要求政府批准任何須取得聯邦許可的項目前，要考慮環境影響並尋求公眾參與。

That bipartisan debt ceiling legislation included reforms to the environmental law designed to streamline the approval process for major construction projects, such as oil pipelines, highways and power lines for wind- and solar-generated electricity. The rules released by the White House Council on Environmental Quality are intended to guide federal agencies in putting the reforms in place.

那項兩黨支持的債務上限法律，包括該環境法律的改革，意在讓石油管線、公路以及風力或太陽能發電用的電線等重大建案，批准流程更精簡流暢。白宮環境品質委員會發布的規定，目標就是引導聯邦政府機構將這些改革推動上路。

But they also lay out additional requirements created to prioritize projects with strong environmental benefits, while adding layers of review for projects that could harm the climate or their surrounding communities.

但它們也明列了額外規定，其創設目的是賦予優先地位給具可觀環境效益項目，同時對可能危害氣候或周邊社區的項目增設層層審核。

“These reforms will deliver smarter decisions, quicker permitting, and projects that are built better and faster,” said Brenda Mallory, chair of the council. “As we accelerate our clean energy future, we are also protecting communities from pollution and environmental harms that can result from poor planning and decision-making while making sure we build projects in the right places.”

「這些改革會造就更聰明的決策、更迅速的許可，工程興建也會更妥善、更快速」，前述委員會主席馬洛瑞說，「時值我們加速邁向潔淨能源的未來，我們也在保護社區，免於規畫或決策失當可能導致的汙染或環境傷害，並且確保我們把建案蓋在對的地方。」

The move comes as President Joe Biden rushes to push through a slew of major environmental rules before November’s presidential election, including policies to limit climate-warming pollution from cars, trucks, power plants and oil and gas wells; to protect the habitats of the sage grouse and other endangered species; to ban asbestos; and to remove so-called forever chemicals from tap water.

此舉正值拜登趕著在11月總統選舉前，推行一連串重大環境法規，其中政策包括要限制來自汽車、卡車、發電廠、油井與天然氣井的氣候暖化汙染，保護艾草松雞和其他瀕危物種的棲息地，禁止石棉，並從自來水裡清除所謂的永久化學物質。

The rules could help to more quickly carry out Biden’s signature climate law, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which includes at least $370 billion in tax incentives to expand renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, as well as electric vehicles. The new rules released by the White House Council for Environmental Quality would also allow projects that have a demonstrated long-term environmental benefit to receive expedited environmental reviews or bypass them altogether.

這些規定可能幫助更快履行拜登的招牌氣候法律「2022年降低通膨法」，內含至少3,700億美元租稅獎勵以推展風電、光電等再生能源及電動車。白宮環境品質委員會的新規，也會讓經表明具長期環境效益的項目享有加速環境審核，或直接繞過審核。

大法官熱議川普豁免權 200年前就有解

Did the American Revolution actually happen? If it did, was it a good thing?

美國獨立革命真的發生過嗎？若是真的，那是件好事嗎？

This is more or less what Justice Elena Kagan seemed to be wondering during the oral arguments in Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 immunity case at the Supreme Court on Thursday morning.

美國最高法院周四早上針對前總統川普1月6日國會暴亂豁免權案進行言詞辯論時，這似乎或多或少是大法官凱根所疑惑的問題。

“Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” she asked.

她問：「重點不就是總統並非君主，且總統不應凌駕法律之上嗎？」

Like her, I had assumed those questions were answered decisively in the affirmative more than 200 years ago. But now, after almost three hours of circuitous debate and bizarre hypotheticals at the Supreme Court, I’m not so sure.

和凱根一樣，我也曾認為，這些問題200多年前就已斷然獲得肯定回答。但現在，經過最高法院近三小時迂迴的辯論和怪異的假設，我不太確定。

The right-wing justices seemed thoroughly uninterested in the case before them, which involves a violent insurrection that was led by a sitting president who is seeking to return to office in a matter of months. Instead, they spent the morning and early afternoon appearing to be more worried that prosecuting Trump could risk future malicious prosecutions of former presidents by their political rivals. And they tried to draw a distinction between official acts, for which a president might have immunity from prosecution, and private acts, for which no immunity would apply.

右派大法官似乎對面前這起案件非常不感興趣，該案涉及由一個現任總統所領導的暴力叛亂，此人正尋求數月內重返白宮。他們整個早上和下午稍早反倒是似乎更擔心，起訴川普的風險是未來前總統可能被政敵惡意起訴。他們試圖區分官方和私人行動，前者可能享有不被起訴的豁免權，後者不享有豁免權。

The upshot was that a majority of justices appeared prepared to send the case back down to the lower courts for further unnecessary litigation, which would almost certainly eliminate any chance of a trial being held before Election Day.

結果是大多數大法官似乎準備將案件發回下級法院，進一步進行不必要的訴訟，這幾乎確定消除審判在選舉日前舉行的任何機會。

So let’s remember how we got here. The case began last year with special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president on charges of obstruction, fraud and conspiracy relating to his central role in the effort to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, which resulted in the deadly attack at the U.S. Capitol. This scheme was, by a long shot, the most egregious abuse of authority by any president in history.

所以，讓我們回想事情是如何走到這一步。這起案件始於去年，當時特別檢察官史密斯起訴這位前總統，指控他妨礙司法、詐欺，以及他在試圖推翻2020年大選敗選陰謀中的關鍵角色，這導致美國國會大廈發生致命攻擊。無論如何，這項計畫是美國史上任何一個總統最令人震驚的濫權行為。

In short, the justice system is doing its job by trying to hold to account a former president for subverting the last election before he runs in the next one. That is a very important job! And yet the right-wing justices are saying, essentially, not so fast — and maybe not at all.

總之，司法體系正盡其職責，試圖在一個前總統參加下次選舉前，追究他顛覆上次選舉的責任。這是非常重要的工作！然而，右派大法官基本上在說，不要這麼急，也許就別審了。

The federal Jan. 6 trial should have been underway for almost two months by this point. The lower courts, in opinions by judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, dispatched this appeal with ease. But the Supreme Court decided to take the case anyway, scheduling it for the final argument day of the term.

1月6日國會暴亂的聯邦審判，此時應該已進行快兩個月了。下級法院先前依據共和黨和民主黨任命的法官意見，毫不費力的駁回了上訴。但最高法院仍決定受理此案，並將其排在庭期的最後言詞辯論日。