Written by: Sebastien Decker
Edited by: Keerthana Rao
"The growing evidence of climate change is forcing attention on carbon emissions and their reduction."
- Gordon Brown
With the threat of climate change increasing each year, the Supreme Court is hearing a case that could make it harder for the government to enforce future environmental regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency can implement various rules concerning air, water, and other factors regarding the environment. Increased awareness in the last decade for the devastating effects of climate change has led some leaders to call for more action to curb the level of emissions the United States produces. Americans fear climate change and largely support policies to help combat it. However, various states are challenging the level of authority the EPA has in enforcing these standards. The decision the Court makes in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency can have lasting implications for future environmental standards attempts.
When Congress passes environmental laws, they delegate power to the EPA to ensure their provisions are implemented into the public and adequately enforced (Legal Information Institute). Concerning the case, The Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to maintain air quality and regulate the number of hazardous pollutants produced by both "stationary and mobile sources (EPA)." Under that act, the EPA published the Affordable Clean Energy rule to enforce state standards on emissions for "coal-fired" power plants and aid the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions with the "best system of emission reduction (EPA)." States have already successfully challenged this rule to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where they reversed and remanded the law, and they hope to see the same result in the Supreme Court (Legal Information Institute). Oral arguments are currently taking place as many await the Court's decision and potential impact on future environmental guidelines. States like West Virginia contend that the powers of the EPA in their potential ability to regulate their emission standards are an overreach of their capacity as a governmental agency. A firmly held belief is that these measures should directly affect their elected representatives, rather than an agency consisting of appointed members making them on their behalf (Legal Information Institute). They also argue that the EPA has not fulfilled the "clear and unambiguous language" requirement of the Clean Air Act. As a result, their power is unconstitutionally delegated to the Agency (Legal Information Institute).
Experts claim that we have to act now to stop much of the irreversible effects of climate change; however, a devastating ruling like this can create a barrier for any future emissions regulations (IPCC). Despite the challenges to the EPA's, data shows that most Americans favor environmental regulation and likely entrust the agency with these powers. The PEW Research center finds that about 59% of Americans are willing to bear with stricter ecological laws (PEW). Therefore, it is surprising that there are still many elected officials willing to stand in the way of comprehensive environmental reform. Especially considering that 60% of citizens see climate change as a significant threat the world currently faces, 64% feel it should be one of their top priorities (PEW). Additionally, 67% think the government isn't doing nearly enough to combat climate (PEW). Unfortunately, the pending case can make it more difficult for Americans to achieve these hopes.
So many across the country are ready and willing to see the adoption of environmental standards. Many individuals support agencies like the EPA in taking the initiative in protecting the environment. But at the same time, others are so weary of the vast regulation power of the EPA that they are gearing to hinder the agency's efforts altogether. As the justices deliberate West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, many individuals will be awaiting a decision that could significantly affect the course of environmental regulation.
[The views expressed in this article are those of the author and the author alone; they do not necessarily represent the views of all members of the first RULR Editorial Board and Rutgers University.]
Comments