The Supreme Court Ruling on EPA and The Impacts on Global Climate Efforts

On Thursday June 30th, 2022 the Supreme Court of the United States of America determined that the Clean Air Act - initially passed in 1963 - does not warrant the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate power plants that emit greenhouse gasses. The vote - a 6 to 3 decision with votes falling along party lines - has been one of the recent decisions by the Supreme Court that has stirred up controversy in the US. This is since it essentially determined that under the Clear Air Act, the EPA cannot regulate the carbon dioxide emissions of power plants in the United States.

Before we explore the controversy however, let’s review the historical context of the EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, was founded under former President Richard Nixon, and is a federal agency aimed to “protect human health and the environment.” The EPA aims to uphold aforementioned goals through development and enforcement of environmental regulations. The EPA is virtually the de-facto environmental regulator in the US, responsible for writing a vast swath of environmental policy proposed on the floors of congress. Since its development in 1970, the EPA has been responsible for tremendous improvements in the water quality of American harbors (such as the Hudson Bay and Cuyahoga River), reduced lead contents in major products saving thousands of lives annually in the process, improved US air quality, and upholded water quality standards. Overall, the EPA has saved hundreds of thousands of lives since it was made, and is at the forefront of the fight against climate change.

So then, what is the Clean Air Act and why is it important? The Clean Air Act (or CAA) is a federal law that is a quintessential regulator of climate change and emissions in the United States. This act gives the EPA an automatic right to regulate the climate and energy-burning industries, finding that “this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.” This is vital, as the criterion in these bills lay the foundation for American Climate Policy.

The chart below describes the benefits the EPA has provided:

The future impacts of this decision by the Supreme Court has substantial future impacts. First and foremost, it goes against President Biden’s aims to half greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, a carbon-free economy by 2035, net zero emissions by 2050, and structural changes to the US economy; including transitioning jobs to green energy sectors and to pave a sustainable path into the future. All of these goals are severely crippled due to the ruling legally warding off policy that would aim to mandate a switch to renewable energy sources.

• Since the ruling has determined now power plants cannot be regulated for environmental purposes, the 30% of total carbon emissions they output will go unchecked, raising the eyebrows of many environmentalists as well

• However, this allows for the US manufacturing industry to be revitalized in order to compete with China, a manufacturing powerhouse in the status quo.

The Democrats view this ruling unfavorably, along with the recent string of rulings the SCOTUS has made that have leaned to the conservative end of politics. President Joe Biden issued a statement following the result of the case, “The Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia vs. EPA is another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards. While this decision risks damaging our nation’s ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.”

This goes hand in hand with the consensus amongst Democrats in the US, as prior to this ruling, studies from Pew Research elucidated that 78% of self-identified Democrats feel climate change should be a top priority. Furthermore, 90% of all Democrats feel the government is doing too little to stop climate change or is not doing anything substantive to mitigate its effects.

While the Democratic Party has a more definitive stance, the Republican party has a multitude of differing opinions and stances as to what actions should be taken on climate change. Based on factors such as age, ethnicity, and social beliefs/values numbers can range anywhere from ⅔ to ¼ of Republicans approving of the government's actions to prevent climate change. Usually, more liberal or moderate republicans view climate change as a pressing issue that mandates decisive action immediately, while more right leaning or more conservative republicans deem it unnecessary for a multitude of reasons. In this pool of subjects, it usually boils down to lack of trust in government actions to address climate change. In other words, these people feel policies that would be proposed will have little to no bearing to solve the ticking time bomb that is coming closer and closer, given there is no reset button for the climate. Only 41% of Republicans view climate change to be a salient issue, with an additional meager 39% of Republicans feeling the government has done too little to stop climate change.

For independents there is a vast swath of differing opinions that cause such a massive rift in the voting base. While ⅔ of the US population feels more climate action is necessary, there is still a considerable amount of shift in the opinions for a more generalized description. For more Libertarian voters who advocate for a smaller government or less regulations, they advocate for less government intervention into the US and its policy would feel that either:

a) No substantive action by the government can solve the issue without devastating repercussions and minimal efficacy

OR

b) The private industry can and/or will regulate itself and solve the issue. Independents that desire a larger government or more equality (socialists, communists, workers parties), deem that climate change is a pressing issue that renders immediate attention before it’s too late.

There are many organizations such as the Sunrise Movement that place a heavy emphasis on combating climate change while attaining other goals such as racial justice and universal jobs in the process. So really, there is a very big rift and lots of differing opinions, but the majority of independents (as do Americans) view climate action as rendering immediate action.

How to take action:

To any person who wants their voice to be heard, voting is the easiest and most direct way to channel your viewpoints to others. You can register for voting in your state simply by googling “How to vote in [insert state/region/country]”. Further action, such as…

• Campaigning- https://www.rockthevote.org/

• Volunteering-https://citizensclimatelobby.org/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=nationwide-volunteer-recruitment&utm_term=climate%20change%20advocacy

• Charity work- https://act.nrdc.org/donate/donate-monthly/?source=MRDAFGOA_c3-FR_SE&utm_campaign=Climate&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclsrc=ds&gclsrc=ds

…Are all alternative forms to further your goals and ensure you can make the best advocacy for your standpoint.

Bibliography

1. epa.gov. “Our Mission and What We Do.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do.

2. epa.gov. “Laws and Regulations.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act.

3. “Benefits and Costs to the Clean Air Act.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-costs-clean-air-act-1990-2020-second-prospective-study.

4. whitehouse, .gov. “Fact Sheet: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies.” The White House, The United States Government, 22 Apr. 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/.

5. Kennedy, Brian, and Courtney Johnson. “More Americans See Climate Change as a Priority, but Democrats Are Much More Concerned than Republicans.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 28 Aug. 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/28/more-americans-see-climate-change-as-a-priority-but-democrats-are-much-more-concerned-than-republicans/.

6. Tyson, Alec, and Brian Kennedy. “Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate.” Pew Research Center Science & Society, Pew Research Center, 12 July 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/.