What the New SCOTUS Ruling Means For The Climate
Insight Into The Future
The Supreme Court’s latest decision involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its regulations will undermine our initiative in fighting climate change. Instead of installing principles crucial for the future, we are weakening regulations that make a difference. Although there are other methods to help combat climate change, regulating the industry is a much more effective tool to help limit emissions.
For those unaware of the situation, the Supreme Court has limited the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions due to the West Virginia vs. EPA case. This verdict is a setback for the Biden administration’s significant efforts to combat climate change.
If we want to reach the Biden Administration’s goal of dropping emissions by 50–52% by 2030, we need to think outside the box for solutions. Let’s unpack what this ruling entirely means in terms of the future.
To go deeper into the verdict, the Supreme Court thought that the 1970 Clean Air Act, which put state-level limits on carbon emissions, was crossing the line authority-wise. This act drove states away from coal to other energy sources that produce less carbon. Furthermore, the Court said that the authority to decide which energy source to use would come from Congress.
Without the act, we don’t have limits on emissions in states, and it also slows our necessary shift to renewable energy. According to Charlotte Roscoe, a Harvard professor, “This is a regressive decision that will limit EPA’s power to control emissions and mitigate climate change, which is a huge setback for public health.” One of the only ways we will be able to fight climate change is by using the help of our authorities to help create regulations.
Without strict guidelines, we will struggle to stay within the lines. The Supreme Court’s decision is terrible for everyone except for coal companies. We can’t weigh our environment over money. Our future looks bleak if we continue on the path we are on, we need to take action, and by restricting organizations that do so, we are only hampering our survival chances.
Secondly, this ruling doesn’t only weaken our environmental efforts; it can also put a stain on our climate diplomacy. In the future, if we don’t reach our goals set by the Biden Administration, it will show we as a country can’t get our climate goals and will show poorly when making climate initiatives. Furthermore, with the new ruling, reaching the goal seems like a fantasy dream. CFR explains further, “The failure of the United States, the world’s largest historic emitter and second-largest current emitter, to fulfill its commitments would weigh down U.S. diplomatic efforts in international climate negotiations. Some experts opine that the ruling puts the goal nearly beyond reach”.
To navigate climate change, we must use the help of the nations around us. Therefore, if we don’t reach our goals, it is even more difficult for everyone to navigate the rough terrain that the future holds.
The Clean Air Act helped steer us away from coal usage and initiated a shift to renewable energy. Furthermore, it also helped keep the community healthy by reducing pollution in the air. Earth Justice states, “The Clean Air Act has proven a remarkable success. In its first 20 years, more than 200,000 premature deaths and 18 million cases of respiratory illness in children were prevented.”
The Clean Air Act was very beneficial and proved helpful to our environment. Without the help of our government, it won’t be easy to move away from the numbers many scientists are predicting. The Supreme Court’s verdict has shown us that we need regulations.
We need more government action related to climate change. Overall, this ruling will impact our diplomacy and climate efforts. We must invent and collaborate on solutions to resist the scary numbers that loom towards us at an alarming rate. We are running out of time.
It is now or never.
