The US Supreme Court EPA ruling is really bad, but here's why all is not lost

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

67% : Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO at the Solar Energy Industries Association, said:Solar will continue to grow, because customers want clean power and solar is the most cost-effective source of clean energy.
62% : New record-breaking occurrences in clean energy and the EV industry in both the private and public sector.
62% : The financial sector is pouring money into clean energy, and technological innovations are happening at lightning speed.
59% : We must expand the Court to restore balance to the bench, and we must pass the climate justice and clean energy package that will enable our urgent efforts to address the climate crisis.
56% : In a 6-3 ruling the United States Supreme Court today severely curtailed the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon pollution and respond to the threat of climate change.
51% : The EPA must be able to regulate and enforce guidelines to conserve our natural resources and ensure that we all have clean water to drink and fresh air to breatheMatthew Mayers, executive director of Green Workers Alliance, said:Today's outrageous decision in West Virginia v. EPA is the culmination of a long-running campaign by the fossil fuel industry and investor-owned utilities to take away the government's abilities to regulate their dangerous emissions.
50% : Among other things, this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
49% : Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) said in an emailed statement:Congress must not only support the EPA's longstanding, life-saving efforts to protect climate and public health in the face of this decision, but Congress must also do its job and pass meaningful climate and clean energy funding to protect our communities and our future.
48% : In the West Virginia v. EPA ruling today, the court said that the current Clean Air Act can only directly regulate coal plants.
47% : But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d).
44% : Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, and there simply is no advantage or incentive to sticking with coal, gas, and oil.
41% : It also means a setback for the Biden administration's goal of running US electricity on clean energy by 2035 -- and the US reaching net zero by 2050 to comply with the Paris Agreement, which calls on the world's nations to keep global warming significantly below 2C (3.6F) and to strive to limit the increase to 1.5C (2.7F).
40% : Chevron v NRDC says that Congress, which is not staffed by scientists, doesn't need to make every tiny decision about pollution regulations, but that EPA scientists can take care of that.
39% : Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible "solution to the crisis of the day."
37% : The agency can and must set standards to cut carbon pollution from power plants that burn coal or gas.
22% : The American Medical Association issued the following statement:The American Medical Association is deeply disappointed with today's US Supreme Court opinion restricting the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the carbon emissions that cause climate change and harm public health.

*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.