Professor Alexandra (Xander) Meise teaches in the law school’s Legal Skills in Social Context program. Her current research focuses on legal disputes and security policy issues presented by climate change and natural resource conflicts. Meise’s career has spanned five continents, including work for the Pre-Trial Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia through the United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials and in international development in countries such as Yemen and Bosnia. Meise is a political partner of the Truman National Security Project and served as the Truman Center for National Policy’s inaugural visiting senior fellow for climate and energy security. She is also a member of the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs New Leaders program.

We asked Meise about two key areas of her research.

Q: You discussed the intersecting threats of nuclear weapons and climate change at the 2022 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference. How are they connected?

A: Nuclear and climate change policy both need to address existential threats to society and human life. For example, climate impacts may not be top-of-mind when people think of nuclear weapons, but the use of even a small weapon could have ramifications for human health and security just as devastating as those from climate change. A localized deployment would lead to massive destruction in the immediate area, but the resulting fire and ash could also lead to negative health outcomes across wide territories. Scientists estimate that the cooling from added atmospheric particles could reduce global precipitation and shorten growing seasons, setting off a food crisis.

In addition, the most vulnerable among us are often on the front lines of both climate change and the negative externalities of nuclear weapons and energy development. We should learn from the past with nuclear development, particularly regarding the potential negative effects of mining operations, and not repeat those mistakes as we shift away from fossil-fuels and work to develop greener technologies.

Q: Regarding the US Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, some people praised it as a check on the expansion of federal administrative authority while others worried that President Biden and the EPA would be barred from curbing carbon emissions. What’s your take-away from the case?

A: Contrary to some early media coverage, the Court’s opinion was not a blanket prohibition on President Biden and the EPA from taking actions to curb carbon emissions. While the Court’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act will make it harder for the executive branch to regulate emissions at the sector level, the ruling didn’t abrogate key holdings of past cases affirming the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in many ways, including regulating carbon emissions in power-generation plants that require permits.

In my opinion, the most exciting climate policy news last summer was the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes $369 billion in climate adaptation and resilience funding — the largest climate investment package in US history. This support can help transform our power generation system and facilitate the country meeting its GHG emissions targets, which include cutting GHGs by 50 percent by 2030 and reaching “net zero” by 2050.