The Trump administration announced a significant reversal of a key regulation that enables the federal government to control greenhouse gas emissions. In a White House press conference, President Donald Trump described the move as the “single largest deregulatory action in American history.”
The 2009 endangerment finding, crucial for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases from sectors like motor vehicles and power plants, originates from the 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA. This ruling categorized greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The finding asserts that “current or projected concentrations” of these gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”
Trump argued this action would reduce regulatory costs by over $1.3 trillion and lower car prices significantly. While electric vehicles often cost more initially, they generally offer savings over their lifespan. Climate change impacts have been linked to rising costs for governments, businesses, and homeowners.
Trump criticized the endangerment finding as a “radical rule” with no factual or legal basis, despite well-established scientific and legal backing for the EPA’s conclusions. Even supporters of the repeal acknowledge potential backlash, including lawsuits and activist campaigns.
Following Trump’s announcement, environmental lawyers pledged to contest the repeal. “We will see them in court,” stated Marvin Brown, senior attorney at Earthjustice, emphasizing the threat to public health and science. Sierra Club attorney Andres Restrepo called the action an attempt to bypass the Supreme Court’s prior decision and vowed to challenge it in court.
According to Robert Howarth, a Cornell University professor, research linking greenhouse gases to severe weather and climate instability has strengthened since 2009. “We understood the basics of global warming since 1896,” he noted, adding that the decision was politically driven rather than scientifically.
During the press conference, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin accused previous administrations of using “legal gymnastics” to impose their agendas. The Obama administration established the finding in response to the Supreme Court ruling, following a refusal to regulate greenhouse gases during the Bush era. Former President Barack Obama criticized the repeal, arguing it would benefit the fossil fuel industry at a public cost.
The repeal proposal argues that the Clean Air Act does not cover greenhouse gases due to their non-localized effects, contradicting the 2007 Supreme Court ruling. Erika Kranz from Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program expects this repeal could lead to market unpredictability, noting industry groups’ opposition to the rescission.
Some organizations, like the Heartland Institute, praised the announcement, calling it a victory for vehicle buyers and a challenge to EPA’s climate rules. America’s Power, a coal industry advocate, argued that the finding supported regulations threatening the electric grid’s reliability.
Michelle Bloodworth, CEO of America’s Power, stated, “Overturning bad EPA regulations is necessary but not sufficient,” urging further federal action to maintain coal-fired plants. Trump has prioritized coal industry support, including an executive order for the Defense Department to purchase coal power.
In Pennsylvania, officials and activists plan a Pittsburgh gathering to oppose Zeldin’s decision. Vanessa Lynch of Moms Clean Air Force will attend, citing climate change’s observed impacts in western Pennsylvania and concerns for future generations.
“Repealing this finding is appalling,” Lynch stated. “We must rely on the EPA to protect people and families nationwide.”
Original Story at insideclimatenews.org