In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court Will Decide Whether We Act on Climate Change

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

56% : West Virginia v. EPA will challenge the Chevron deference, and through that, could gut the power of federal agencies to regulate industry.
48% : In an in-depth feature published earlier this month, the New York Times details a multi-decade effort by right wing think tanks, financiers, and the fossil fuel industry to eliminate federal regulation of carbon emissions.
47% : In 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that carbon emissions fit the CAA's definition of air pollution, and that the EPA was therefore required to regulate them.
47% : There's also a potential middle ground, in which the court sides with the defendants, but issues a narrow ruling that limits the EPA to regulatory oversight of power plants while preventing the agency from pushing power companies to pivot to renewable energy sources.
46% : West Virginia v. EPA challenges the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to regulate the carbon emissions of fossil fuel-burning power plants under the Clean Air Act.
46% : The coordination of these lawsuits across the right wing legal spectrum is described as "a pincer move," designed to bring together lawsuits created to challenge federal regulation with sympathetic judges "handpicked" to hear them.
45% : The Times also highlights other lawsuits filed by Republican Attorneys General, including one designed to challenge federal regulation of automotive emissions, and one that would prevent the federal government from considering the costs of climate change's impacts.
35% : In 2015, in Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must consider costs in its rule making and enforcement of the CAA.
34% : The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on West Virginia v. EPA this week, potentially deciding the future of the federal government's ability to limit the effects of climate change -- or even to address the looming climate disaster at all.
33% : If this ruling limits federal regulation of climate change-causing emissions, it could short circuit global attempts to limit the climate disaster, and effectively condemn humanity to a bleak future on a rapidly warming planet.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.