This op-ed was originally published by Slate.
On Feb. 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the first of an expected wave of cases challenging governmental action to address the climate crisis. The court’s grant of four petitions seeking review in this case—two by coal companies and two by states—portends that the six conservative justices will erect significant barriers to meaningful climate policy and will continue to interfere with democratic governance in disregard of the rule of law.
The issue presented in the case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, concerns the EPA’s authority to regulate pursuant to its mandate in the Clean Air Act. Oddly, there’s no regulation in effect for the court to review; instead, it will ostensibly review the interpretation of the act adopted by the Obama administration nearly a decade ago, which gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants by requiring plants to implement measures targeting polluting energy sources and not just backend carbon emissions. While moving away from these energy sources is precisely what is necessary to respond to catastrophic climate disruption, it also conflicts with what remains the fossil fuel industry’s core business of fossil fuel production.
Following an initial proposal in 2014, the Obama EPA did issue such a potentially impactful rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, but it was short-lived because five justices granted fossil fuel companies’ and other industry groups’ and states’ petitions for an emergency stay in 2016. The justices took this extraordinary measure in a brief order on the court’s shadow docket, and without full briefing, oral argument, or a reasoned opinion. Notably, this was the first time the court had stayed a rule before a federal appellate court had the chance to review it. That move represented a sweeping assertion of judicial power and a harbinger of what we can expect in West Virginia v. EPA, particularly given the court’s now stronger conservative bent.
Showing 2,914 results
Karen Sokol | January 26, 2022
On Feb. 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the first of an expected wave of cases challenging governmental action to address the climate crisis. The court’s grant of four petitions seeking review in this case -- two by coal companies and two by states -- portends that the six conservative justices will erect significant barriers to meaningful climate policy and will continue to interfere with democratic governance in disregard of the rule of law.
Alejandro Camacho | January 21, 2022
Following the announcement that the Bureau of Land Management will cap abandoned oil and gas wells on public lands, CPR is taking a look at the other top issues BLM and its new director, Tracy Stone-Manning, must address.
Sandra Zellmer | January 13, 2022
A global movement is underway to protect 30 percent of the Earth's lands and waters by 2030. More than seventy countries support this goal to combat climate change and slow the pace of species extinction, both of which are accelerating at an unprecedented rate. The two threats are closely intertwined. The greatest drivers of species extinction are climate change and habitat loss; by the same token, the loss of intact, functioning habitat and biodiversity diminishes the capacity for climate resilience. In the United States, one of President Biden's earliest executive orders, issued in his first week in office, established a goal to conserve at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and water and 30 percent of U.S. ocean areas by 2030. The order proclaims an "all of government" approach to strengthening climate resilience and biodiversity while promoting environmental justice and economic growth.
Johnathan Clark | January 12, 2022
On the morning of January 9, 2014, residents of Charleston, West Virginia, noticed an unusual licorice-like odor in their tap water. Within hours, a federal state of emergency was declared as 300,000 West Virginia residents were advised to avoid contact with their tap water, forcing those affected to rely on bottled water until the water supply was restored over one week later. As detailed in our recent report, Tanks for Nothing: The Decades-long Failure to Protect the Public from Hazardous Chemical Spills, the West Virginia Legislature moved quickly to address demands for increased regulatory oversight of aboveground chemical storage tanks (ASTs). With the memory of the spill still fresh in the minds of legislators and constituents, West Virginia enacted the Aboveground Storage Tank Act in 2014. The program primarily serves two major functions: to enact and enforce standards to reduce the risk of a future spill, and to make information about regulated tanks available to state regulators and the public.
Daniel Farber | January 6, 2022
The Biden administration announced on Monday that it would not meet a February target date to issue a revised definition of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. It still plans to issue a revised definition later in the year. That sounds like a very technical issue. But it actually determines the extent to which the federal government can prevent water pollution and protect wetlands across the nation. The Biden proposal basically calls for case-by-case decisions about federal jurisdiction. It's also the latest chapter in one of the most snarled-up regulatory issue of our times.
Nina Mendelson | December 20, 2021
Scholars and policymakers should recognize the democratic benefits of public comments.
Darya Minovi | December 9, 2021
More than 100 organizations, including the Center for Progressive Reform, are calling for major transformations to the chemical industry — a significant yet overlooked contributor to the climate crisis and toxic pollution in communities. What are the threats and how can reforms take shape? Policy Analyst Dary Minovi explains.
Christine Klein | December 9, 2021
In an era when most Supreme Court opinions are sharply divided, recently the high court unanimously rejected Mississippi’s claim against Tennessee in a long-running dispute over the groundwater that lies beneath both states in a common aquifer.
Darya Minovi, David Flores | December 8, 2021
Across the country, hundreds of thousands of aboveground storage facilities containing hazardous chemicals — such as arsenic, formaldehyde, and trichloroethylene — are not subject to state or federal rules designed to prevent and mitigate spills. These storage tanks sit along our industrialized waterfronts and at agricultural supply depots in our rural communities, threatening the health and safety of nearby residents, many of whom are low-income people of color. It's beyond time for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and states like Virginia to take action.