Climate Conversations
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Delegates
    • Alumni and Advisors
  • Climate Conversation
    • Policy
    • Science and Technology
    • Science Communication
    • COP Collection
    • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Find Us
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Delegates
    • Alumni and Advisors
  • Climate Conversation
    • Policy
    • Science and Technology
    • Science Communication
    • COP Collection
    • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Find Us

Climate Conversations

COP27

What Does the Recent SCOTUS Ruling Spell for Carbon Emissions Mitigation in The United States?

10/11/2022

4 Comments

 
By: Spencer Smith


​​Recently among other controversial Supreme Court decisions, the West Virginia vs EPA case set a new precedent for the future of the EPA’s role in climate change mitigation. On June 30th, the Supreme Court voted in a 6-3 majority to limit the level of authority of the EPA to regulate under a specific provision of the Clean Air Act. This specific provision is in regard to emissions caps from the power sector. Now due to this decision, the EPA must look to Congress for approval and specific documentation to set out specific caps. There is a lot to unpack regarding this decision so it would be advantageous to discuss a bit of background on the Supreme Court and the EPA. 
Massachusetts v. EPA
The first climate-centered case that brought the EPA to the Supreme Court was Massachusetts v. EPA. This case, which was decided in April of 2007, found in a 5-4 decision that the EPA is given authority to regulate several greenhouse gases as per the Clean Air Act. The specific concern of the EPA and the final decision was the regulation of tailpipe emissions from various automobiles. It is important to note that the Clean Air Act defines an air pollutant as “any pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters ambient air,” (Clean Air Act 42 W.S.C § 7602(g)). After this case, the EPA found that six greenhouse gases “in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare,” (Massachusetts v EPA). In response to this, three states, Alabama, Texas, and Virginia appeal this decision in 2010. After making it through court again, the U.S. Court of Appeals sided with the EPA upholding the findings that greenhouse gases endanger human health and are likely the culprit behind global warming. This opinion on the dangers of greenhouse gases on human health would stand until 2015.
 
Michigan v. EPA
The second major court case centered on climate and the EPA was Michigan v. EPA. This case, which was decided in June of 2015, found that the EPA was not being considerate of cost when interpreting the words of the Clean Air Act. Changes to the Clean Air Act enacted in the 1990s directed the EPA to investigate the effects of the emission of hazardous pollutants on public health. The emissions of these pollutants were specifically checked in the power sector. The 1990 changes also stated that the EPA had the authority to regulate the power sector if “regulation is appropriate and necessary after considering the results of the study,” (Michigan v EPA 42 U.S.C. § 7412(n)(1)(A)). The opinion of the court in 2015 stated that this interpretation of the Clean Air Act had “strayed far beyond [the] bounds of reasonable interpretation” (Michigan v EPA) and would cost too much. The main body of this decision was not one of climate concerns but rather the extent of government regulations. The EPA’s greenhouse gas monitoring did not end, but its authority over regulation diminished as a result of this ruling. That remaining amount of authority would stand until the most recent ruling in West Virginia v EPA.
What The Ruling Means for ClimateWhile limitations on the EPA are never positive for climate change mitigation, this decision is extremely limited in its scope. The only aspect to which the EPA is limited in this regard is when it comes to the power sector. Greenhouse gas emissions can come from practically anywhere, so the EPA still has authority over regulations in many other cases. The key takeaway is that regulations can still be set out by the U.S. government, however, this decision puts that responsibility on Congress rather than the EPA. Additionally, this means that all future regulations must have very specific wording when addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. The main concern of this distribution of power is what it expects of the U.S. Congress. Congress has not passed any major legislation in regard to climate change since 2008. Since Biden’s inauguration, the U.S. has signed back onto the Paris Agreement, signed the Methane Pledge, and created a Carbon Neutrality Executive Order. Although there is positive work being done by the Biden Administration in favor of climate change mitigation, many lack permanency. Like the back and forth the EPA has seen since the Clean Air Act’s creation, the future of authority over greenhouse gas emissions is uncertain. Without stability, it is unlikely that there will be much work done in the actual mitigation of greenhouse gases.

Works Cited
“42 U.S. Code § 7602 - Definitions.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7602#g.
“Findlaw's United States DC Circuit Case and Opinions.” Findlaw, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1604469.html. 

4 Comments
Mikaela Wovna
14/11/2022 04:39:13 pm

The SCOTUS ruling for Carbon Emission Mitigation in the United States wanted to enforce a change in reducing climate change in which humans had contributed to the effect. This dilemma has sparked an uproar in the Supreme Court with many different spectrums of views. It was cool to see what went down in the first Climate related case with Massachuetts vs EPA. It showed with data that many greenhouse gasses would be the cause of public health and global warming. Since the Clean Air Act there were other regulations put in place instead like Methane Pledge and Carbon Neutrality Executive Order. Although there have been strides to make the air pollution better equipped for today’s world, many of those steps are not comparable to what the pollution has consumed up in the US.

Reply
Autumn Miller
14/11/2022 07:23:07 pm

I think it is more than interesting that the first climate case was brought in court in the year of 2007. That was much more recent than I expected, and that arose the question of, why so recent? What has society changed somewhat currently, to now be noticing significant changes in the atmosphere? Then I realized that we are constantly building new infrastructure, every acre of land is being bought to build on, more and factories are being built, roads are infested with tractor trailers. If all we do is look around, at the face paced lifestyle we all live, it all makes sense. We expect things to be ready when we want it, we rely on convenience, and this convenience makes us lazy, and is ruining our environment. Air pollution is extreme, and at its all time high, and until everyone takes it seriously, the Greenhouse effect will only worsen.

Reply
Sydney Slack
21/11/2022 07:43:12 am

Thank you for this review of court cases regarding the EPA, it was very informative!
I also find it interesting that the most oldest case involving the EPA was as recently as 2007. I suppose that implies are bigger concern with climate change as the years progress, though it is sad to see that the EPA has been restricted in this manner and that not much progress has seemingly been made on that front.
I wonder what it would take to create more stability in those measures so a future administration cannot back down again.

Reply
Anthony Furrule
21/11/2022 07:50:50 am

The clean air act has stood since 1970, protecting not only our environment, but also people in the United States from a miserable society of toxic smog, dirty water, and an uncertain future of how new generation will have to deal with the filth of the modern society. Now, in 2022, the repeal of some of the major ecological laws put in place to aid in the ceasing of a polluted planet, have been overturned.

Currently, global warming has taken the concern of the depletion of the ozone layer (which was one reason for the implementation of the clean air act of 1970). Still, the consumption of fossil fuels has barely been hit, as CFC's were once they were found to deplete ozone. Although it is not as common to see companies in the US dumping toxic sludge into our water as it once was, the burning of fossil fuels still is omnipresent and encompasses nearly every aspect of our lives.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    November 2022
    June 2022
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    April 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014

    Categories

    All
    Climate
    Climate Change
    Haley Davis
    Oceans

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Noel Feans