The Environmental Protection Agency now has fewer tools to fight climate change, after the U.S. Supreme Court stripped the agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants.

The Court's 6-3 ruling along party lines involves the 2015 Clean Power Plan. The majority ruled it is unlawful for federal agencies to make "major" decisions without clear authorization from Congress.

Jayson O'Neill, director of the Western Values Project, predicted existing laws in both "blue" and "red" states that go further than federal laws to protect air quality could be eliminated.

"Our government's ability to protect us from corporate pollution, including climate emissions, is nearly wiped out," O'Neill stressed. "Our future's in question."

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., called the court's decision a "major step backwards" at a time when hydrocarbons are fueling more destructive wildfires, reducing snowpack and contributing to the state's worst drought in 1,200 years.

Thursday marked the end of the high court's current term, which also saw explosive rulings on abortion and guns.

In handing down its ruling in the EPA case, the court invoked the "major questions" doctrine, a decision which could affect the federal government's authority to regulate in other areas, including the internet and worker safety.

Andres Restrepo, senior attorney for the Sierra Club, believes the ruling is dangerous.

"It really is something that has the risk of metastasizing in a way that could really hinder the government's ability to keep us safe," Restrepo cautioned.

O'Neill expects to see a flood of lawsuits by corporations challenging federal rules protecting human health and the environment.

"Put another feather in the hat that corporations have essentially more rights than individuals," O'Neill contended. "And that they would be able to challenge laws that protect individual health and win those cases, for their profits."

The court's ruling does recognize the EPA's authority and responsibility to limit climate pollution from cars and trucks, oil and gas development and industrial sites.

Although President Joe Biden has signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law, many are hoping he will declare a climate emergency to provide further funding. It would allow for additional provisions to fight the effects of climate change and reduce fossil-fuel usage in the U.S.

New York State has been seeing the effects of climate change firsthand since 45 counties, or three quarters of the state, are currently under a drought watch. Although this is the mildest of the four drought advisories, there are concerns climate change might only exacerbate future drought conditions in the state.

Dominic Frongillo, executive director of Elected Officials to Protect America, believes declaring a climate emergency is a major necessity.

"What declaring a climate emergency will allow President Biden to do is to halt crude exports for crude oil, stop offshore oil and gas drilling, restrict international investment in fossil fuels, and to be able to accelerate the manufacturing and the homegrown jobs here in the United States in an investment to ramp up renewable-energy production," Frongillo outlined.

Currently, 1,000 elected officials across the U.S. have signed a letter urging a climate emergency be declared. A bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2021, asking President Biden to declare a climate emergency, but has been languishing in committee.

While the Inflation Reduction Act is one of the largest investments in fighting climate change, Frongillo feels the shortfalls cancel out the benefits. One instance he cited is how investment in fossil fuels can continue despite moving to renewable energy. He sees the bill as a great success but believes it helps oil and gas companies too much.

"By opening up public lands for leasing, and because the fossil-fuel industry is primarily responsible for the climate crisis, is driving the climate crisis; we need a clear and strong plan to get America off fossil fuels, to lead the world in phasing out fossil fuels," Frongillo urged.

Frongillo is optimistic about the new law being a catalyst for a bigger leap to renewable resources. However, without Biden declaring a climate emergency, he feels the U.S. might not reach its goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50%.

A federal court's decision to require the Department of Interior to consider the potential health and climate impacts of coal mining on public lands could finally give sovereign tribes in Wyoming a seat at the table.

Connie Wilbert, director of the Sierra Club Wyoming Chapter, said until now, federal agencies just paid lip service to concerns raised by tribes about impacts to drinking water, air quality and their way of life.

"This is a big step towards requiring much more serious consideration and full disclosure of all of the impacts that coal leasing on federal land will have on tribes," Wilbert contended.

Coal industry groups warned the decision would put a question mark on future plans. The ruling reinstates a moratorium on federal coal leasing established under the Obama administration, a pause intended to give agencies time to investigate the cumulative impacts of coal mining. The moratorium has been opposed by industry groups and state officials concerned about possible lost jobs and tax revenues.

Wilbert argued getting off coal will be far less expensive than the financial and human costs brought on by more frequent and intense wildfires, floods and prolonged drought. She believes the way to help workers and communities dependent on the fossil-fuel industry is not to pretend climate change is not happening.

"It's to find ways to change our economy, our economic activity in this state and other states, in ways that aren't so harmful to us all," Wilbert asserted.

Coal operators hold enough leases to continue mining through the next decade, but according to a 2021 analysis, 90% of coal must remain in the ground in order to avert the worst-case projections of leading scientists.

Wilbert emphasized recent court rulings, along with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in Congress to boost clean energy production, makes it obvious the age of coal is coming to an end.

"We have to stop using fossil fuels as an energy source as quickly as we can to avert the worst of climate change," Wilbert stressed. "We don't need to start 10 years from now, we need to start today."

Congress has passed legislation making the largest investment in clean energy in U.S. history.

It has grassroots organizations like Northern Plains Resource Council ecstatic.

Joanie Kresich, board chair of the Council, which represents family agriculture in Montana, said the Inflation Reduction Act is historic for the groups pushing for action on climate change.

"We've never wavered from a vision for a clean energy future, and we feel that vision is within reach now," Kresich asserted. "It's really exciting: Finally, after decades of hope, to have real legislation that's going to help us do what we need to do."

The bill the U.S. House passed over the weekend was slimmed down, compared to earlier versions of the legislation. But it still includes $370 billion for clean-energy programs and is estimated to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 40% by 2030. The bill passed along party lines, with Republicans saying it only expands the deficit and size of government.

Kresich noted the legislation also invests in farmers and ranchers. She pointed out they are on the front lines of climate change and depend on a reliable climate for their work.

"Now we're going to get some really significant federal help, and that's really exciting," Kresich emphasized.

Kresich stressed the changing climate is affecting Montana, and pointed to the recent flooding on the Yellowstone River, which destroyed houses in places like Livingston.

"The kind of damage that happened is a reminder of why we're doing this," Kresich explained. "Why we're trying to make this transition to a clean-energy future."