Climate watch: The Supreme Court’s ruling and future climate action

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency is a big setback in the effort to control greenhouse gas emissions. But it is not the final chapter.

The Court curtailed a considerable part of EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas discharges that drive climate change. Failing to remedy the cause of the climate crisis has always been — however foolish — one policy option. And whatever its legal rationale, the Court’s ruling endorses that approach.

This is unfortunate. While usually billed as a money saver, the “do nothing” option is actually the most expensive of all. It trades trillions of dollars in damage to the planet for balance-sheet benefits to fossil fuel firms.

Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent outlines the impacts: “increases in heat-related deaths,” “coastal inundation and erosion,” “more frequent and intense hurricanes, floods and other extreme weather events,” “drought,” “destruction of ecosystems,” and “potentially significant disruptions of food production.”

In a statement, Citizens’ Climate Lobby said, “By limiting the EPA’s authority in this way, the Court has cut off one major pathway for the federal government to address the root cause of these threats.”

But the Supreme Court’s ruling does not shut down all efforts to contain greenhouse gas emissions in Pennsylvania and some other states.

PennFuture, the environmental advocacy organization, notes that “Pennsylvania’s constitution clearly grants guaranteed rights to clean air for every resident, and Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control Act gives our Department of Environmental Protection the Authority to regulate pollution.”

“The decision handed down by the Supreme Court does not change these rights and it does not change Pennsylvania’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling should have no impact on Pennsylvania’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. RGGI, which our state joined in April, is a group of a dozen East Coast states dedicated to reducing the volume of carbon dioxide pollution from electric power plants.

RGGI is a “cap and trade” program. It requires electric power plants to pay a fee for the CO2 they emit as they burn fossil fuels. Participating states use the money generated to fund local energy efficiency projects, expand renewable energy, and initiate greenhouse gas abatement efforts.

In his majority opinion, Justice Roberts said, “We presume that Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies.”

Should Congress respond to the will of the people? If so, what is that will?

“Public opinion is on the side of climate action,” observes Citizens’ Climate Lobby. “According to the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of Americans believe the government should do more to combat climate change. Bipartisan majorities want to see taxes on corporations based on their carbon emissions, increased tree planting, tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars, and more.”

Congress needs to pass lasting legislation to reduce carbon emissions. An obvious next step: include major climate policy in a budget reconciliation package.

Finally, I urge people to vote and let their representatives know, between elections, how they feel. “Democracy is not a state,” reminded the late Congressman John Lewis. “It is an act.”