Environmental and public health groups have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its decision to eliminate protections against climate-warming pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a plan on Monday, finalized in the Federal Register on Thursday, to revoke most of a Biden-era rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants. The agency also proposed removing all remaining emission requirements, doubling down on climate denial.
The American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, and others have submitted a petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review these changes. They argue the EPA’s plan is unlawful, threatening human health and the environment while leading to increased healthcare costs.
Lawrence Hafetz, legal director of the Clean Air Council, criticized the rollback, stating it would lead to health issues, extreme weather, and higher energy costs, particularly affecting vulnerable communities. “EPA is supposed to protect people and the environment, not rewrite the rules to benefit polluters,” Hafetz said in a statement.
The EPA’s announcement follows a summer marked by deadly and record-breaking heat, massive wildfires, and devastating floods in Nepal, which scientists confirmed were caused by human-induced climate change. A United Nations report warns current emissions are pushing the world into intensifying dangers.
Globally, the U.S. is the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, primarily from burning fossil fuels. The EPA declined to comment on pending litigation and did not respond to critiques of its rule.
Environmental groups have launched a wave of lawsuits against the second Trump administration’s environmental policies. These include challenges to repealing the 2009 endangerment finding, which determined that climate pollution poses a public health threat. Recently, federal judges ruled in favor of environmental groups opposing the administration’s use of emergency orders to keep old coal plants running.
Pat Parenteau from Vermont Law & Graduate School is optimistic about the lawsuits succeeding against the Trump administration, describing the administration’s legal positions as frivolous. He highlighted that the new case will examine if the 2024 power plant rule’s requirements, including carbon capture, are feasible, entering “new territory” for judicial review.
Frank Sturges from the Clean Air Task Force argued that the repeal of the 2024 rule for coal and gas-fired power plants is unlawful and overlooked sound evidence. Sean H. Donahue, representing the Environmental Defense Fund, added that the EPA’s move to eliminate Biden-era standards shows the case is more than a technical debate.
In 2024, the Biden administration’s EPA estimated its strengthened standards for power plants would avoid 1,200 premature deaths and 360,000 asthma cases by 2035, projecting a reduction of 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047. A new analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund estimates the repeal will add 7.5 billion metric tons of climate pollution and cause up to 84,000 premature deaths by 2047.
Michael Gerrard from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University said the lawsuit was “inevitable,” with a strong case that the EPA’s actions violate the Clean Air Act. The EPA’s claims that greenhouse gas emissions are not dangerous contradict extensive scientific evidence, making them “very vulnerable,” he said.
Gerrard noted that nearly all the Trump administration’s environmental actions face legal challenges. A judicial review from New York University found that the first Trump administration only won 23 percent of legal challenges to agency actions, compared to about 70 percent in previous administrations. Gerrard suggests a similar success rate is likely for the second administration.
Original Story at insideclimatenews.org