In a landmark decision, a federal appeals court upheld the finding of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, a by-product in the combustion of fossil fuels, emitted from industrial and vehicle sources endanger public health, and can therefore be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Environmentalists or, better yet, intergenerationalists—a person able to examine human existence along a continuum rather than a finite period that is their egocentric existence—should rejoice in the fact that the judges in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stood their ground against the united front fighting the EPA’s ability to regulate such greenhouse gases. This front, led by industry groups and states with large industrial sectors, such as Virginia and Texas, argued vigorously against the overwhelming wealth of scientific knowledge blaming human activities for global warming. However, in this brief moment of rejoice, intergenerationalists are left with a question: Will it ever be enough? The collective action problem—an economic theory which explains how a small group of likeminded individuals can achieve their aspirations even when challenging a much larger group of individuals with competing interests—inherent in any wishes to curb global warming seems impossible to overcome.

The June 26 decision comes over 5 years after the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that held that the EPA did have the regulatory authority to impose limits on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In the five year period of lag time between these judicial decisions, the U.S. has emitted over 30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. Some would argue that the judiciary cannot move fast enough to overcome the collective action problem posed by global warming.

In this same time period, efforts to legislate limits on carbon dioxide emissions have failed to muster the necessary votes in the Senate, while both candidates for the 2012 presidency have virtually ended their campaigns against global warming after presumably being swayed by the deep pocket campaign contributions of the fossil fuel energy sector: Mitt Romney, who was Governor of Massachusetts at the time of the Massachusetts v. EPA decision, has since retracted his views that human-caused global warming is under way. In the other partisan corner, President Obama’s administration has recently acknowledged that it is highly likely that energy giant Shell will receive permits to begin drilling in the ecologically pristine Alaskan North Slope. This acknowledgement closely follows the President’s recent focus on fossil fuel energy development in his 2012 address on energy and his support for the Keystone Pipeline.

However noteworthy the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia may be, fragmented and disjointed solutions to global warming will not suffice until institutional change is heralded transforming the way politicians are financed, and there is societal change which transforms the population’s focus less on their own short term economic well-being, and more on an intergenerational approach.