America’s apex court may be correct in law but wrong in science by limiting EPA’s authority on climate change

The Supreme Court of the United States of America recently dealt a severe blow to global efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Court, in a 6-3 majority, voted to limit the oversight responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the appropriate use of technology in power generation in the U.S.

On behalf of some selected local power generation companies, West Virginia State brought the case against EPA – a federal agency- suggesting that the EPA did not have the power to determine the energy mix or change the power generation sources at the State level. It further contended that the authority to shift energy generation mix is solely of Congress and not EPA.

The Court astonishingly held the argument by West Virginia and ruled in their favour, curtailing the power of EPA on climate change. Until this ruling, the EPA ensured that concerns about deteriorating city air, natural areas debris littering, and urban water supplies contamination with dangerous impurities were addressed.

Yet, despite the work of EPA in protecting the environment and averting severe drought, famine, floods, heatwaves, and pollution, the conservative Court thinks that regulation on U.S. ecology should not be in the hands of “unelected technicians.”

The Court argued that bureaucrats mustn’t be allowed at any point in time to reshape the economies of States by limiting their pollution. Rather, such power must rest with Congress, who are elected representatives of the citizens. Unfortunately, however, elected representatives do not at all times have the requisite knowledge to handle such matters.

The June 30^th ruling could potentially become a major hamstring to the U.S. government’s efforts at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. Not only that, but it could become a major setback to the global efforts at limiting carbon dioxide emissions as agreed under the Paris pact. It could also become grounds for “free riding, ” especially for countries that pay a heavy price for implementing climate change actions.

The enormous benefits of “free ride” may incentivise some countries to jettison their National Determined Commitments (NDCs) – efforts by each government to reduce national emissions – for short-term economic gains, if possible. Already many countries are way off-track in meeting their NDCs.

Given that climate change is trans-national, any attempt to free ride by other countries could make it harder to achieve the expected goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030 and also reach net zero emission by 2050. It is particularly true for the high emitting G20 Countries. Moreover, it will thwart global efforts to create a healthy and livable planet for the next generation. Certainly, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision may not have taken cognisance of the ramifications of their decision beyond their jurisdiction.

Whist the ruling may be right in the sense of U.S domestic law and great news for the Conservative Americans, it is utterly wrong in science and bad for the rest of the world. It misses the complex and delicate balance between law, science and sociology, thereby elevating the existential threat of climate change. It is no secret that the ruling makes it easy for electricity generation companies to choose less optimal technologies for carbon sequestration. Also, the incentive for businesses to invest in new technologies may run dry and become less of a concern to business owners from now on.

It could also occasion a hostile legal conundrum concerning Federal Agencies’ ability to carry out State-wide activities in the future. Nevertheless, the Biden administration has described the ruling as devastating. Moreover, the administration is working around the clock to ensure that the verdict does not adversely militate against their good efforts to limit pollution in America and, ultimately, global ecology.

The Achilles heel of the ruling is that it quickens ecological disruption and slows global climate action. Since climate change is borderless, the impact of this decision potentially will be felt far and near. For example, pollution from coal-fired plants in Charleston- West Virginia could affect the people of Cape Coast in Ghana and vice-versa.

It is essential to underscore that human’s susceptibility to climate change is graver than they were a few decades ago. However, the stark difference this time is that the impact of ecological disruption may differ between developing and advanced countries due to improved mitigation and adaptation systems in advanced countries.

To meet the Paris Pact would require re-doubling of efforts by all countries who have signed up to the accord. It demands the group of developed industrialised economies, in addition to their NDCs, to support developing countries already reeling from climate change with technological know-how and adequate climate mitigation and adaptation funding.

Many wealthy nations accumulated their sustained wealth at the expense of massive environmental damage during the so-called industrial revolution. As a result, the little these industrialised countries in particular- the United States- could do is undertake programmes that positively impact global ecology, not those that potentially suffocate international efforts. Rightly so, this proposition aligns appropriately with the United Nation’s unrelenting call on wealthy nations to do more if we are to meet climate change targets.

The United States of America is the biggest per capita emitter of CO₂ and second to China in nominal emission terms. The high emission levels of the U.S. make it a critical pillar in the fight against climate change. In this regard, the onus responsibility of the U.S. to contribute towards greenhouse gas emission reduction must be absolute and resounding.

After all, the net cost of embarking on such climate actions may be minimal for the U.S compared to emerging economies that still have sizeable infrastructure deficits. The U.S., as a global hegemony, must bring their leadership to bear in dealing with global commons such as climate change. Failure on the part of the U.S. to step up to the task may inhibit global efforts and devastate generations today and tomorrow.

Should the U.S. fail to devise means to go run the ruling, there is a high possibility that other countries may enact similar retaliatory policies to decrease their climate efforts in return for economic gains. That will damage the multilaterally agreed NDCs adopted for the collective climate action under the Paris Accord.

Such a situation will be direr for the world with an excessively far-reaching impact on people living in developing countries. Given the U.S.’s role in sharpening the world’s geopolitical landscape, any action that leads other countries to adopt “free riding” to climate change may be unfortunate and unacceptable.

The ruling of the Court could also escalate the precarious situation of the global economy. The world economy has been upended significantly by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. According to the UNDP, the pandemic has heightened healthcare insecurity worldwide. It has also accelerated extreme poverty to unprecedented levels, with additional 71 million people in the world’s poorest countries pushed into extreme poverty.

Climate inaction by the world today will only intensify the trajectory of poverty through famine, droughts, flooding, and heatwaves. The poor people will be the hardest hit, especially in countries with weak social safety systems. Such a scenario could dangerously lead to unnecessary global conflicts, demonstrating a complete failure of development economics.

As much as the U.S. is a single country, and their climate inaction may not make or break the rest of the world in securing healthy and livable earth, their action certainly dampens the efforts of other countries. Fortunately, many large responsible U.S. corporations have committed to actions that positively impact the global climate.

The world’s consolation in their singular determination affirms that all is not lost, and we [the world] could still save the planet from the worse impact of climate change if we “make our little effort” to step up our climate action. So let the rest of the world together save the world even without the U.S. However, if the U.S. changes course and comes to the table, it will be better for global climate action.