On the climate side, just a few years ago, proponents had hopes that a very different case would reach the courts and radically change the country’s climate priorities. In Juliana v. United States, often called “Kids v. Climate,” a group of minor litigants hoped to establish a younger generation’s fundamental right to a future undisturbed by the climate impacts imposed by previous generations. of the court even then, this was probably always a somewhat optimistic hope (currently Juliana is stuck in court). But instead, West Virginia v. EPA is the climate case — and decision — the country has been given. grim and “we’re just as screwed as yesterday” isn’t much of a consolation or battle cry.
The climate and the world are changing. What challenges will the future bring and how should we respond to them?
Internationally, the United States’ climate reputation is already somewhat battered. The United States is the world’s largest oil producer, second-largest gas producer, and third-largest consumer of coal, as well as the largest historical emitter by an outrageous margin, responsible for about twice as much carbon damage already done to the planet. inflicted like any other country on earth. Per capita, the country has caused five or six times as much damage as China, the second most responsible country; given the likely emission curves of this century, that gap will probably never be closed.
And yet — despite that responsibility, despite the early environmental action of the United States half a century ago, and despite the fact that, thanks to abundant land and renewable resources, it is now arguably the best positioned in the world to race through a power transition. , which would also bring significant prosperity – the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, undermined the Copenhagen negotiations and, at least briefly, withdrew from the Paris climate accord.
Domestically, it failed to pass major climate legislation with a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority in 2009, failing again in 2021 and so far in 2022, with a smaller majority but still controlling both Congress. like the White House. And according to at least a recent review from ODI Climate and the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliancehas failed to deliver on its own pledges of climate finance aid to developing countries more spectacularly than any other country in the North – with a deficit of more than $40 billion in 2020, when no other country missed its target with even $5 billion.
This is all terrible. But it hasn’t changed much by West Virginia v. EPA either. U.S. emissions are unlikely to rise. The powers limited by the judgment were never actually exercised under the Clean Power Plan. The Affordable Clean Energy Rule, designed by former President Donald Trump as a fossil-friendly alternative to the CPP, is also not in effect. And U.S. issues have failed more quickly without a cap-and-trade program and without the CPP than proponents of both suggested it was possible under those programs.
That’s not to say that where things stood yesterday is an encouraging place to be, or that the decision is meaningless. It could well represent a major setback in the coming years, albeit presumably only under more aggressive or stronger democratic governance than this.
For now, it probably changes more the way we envision possible climate futures than the ones we actually build today by doing nothing. But when it’s all hands on deck, you don’t want one hand tied behind your back. That’s why, for those who are keeping a close eye on the increasingly shortening timelines for action, it probably feels significantly more restrictive today – a handcuff.
David Wallace Wells (@dwallacewells), a writer for Opinion and a columnist for The New York Times Magazine, is the author of “The Uninhabitable Earth”.