In a surprising move, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially rescinded the 2009 endangerment finding, a pivotal ruling that supported the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This decision, taken on February 12, marks a significant departure from scientific consensus and has sparked widespread concern among climate experts.
Key Insights
- The EPA has reversed the 2009 endangerment finding despite scientific evidence.
- This action is viewed as a significant step by the Trump administration in disregarding scientific input.
- Scientists still see opportunities to influence climate policy in the US despite this setback.
The revocation of the endangerment finding has been described by experts as a concerning example of science being sidelined within policy decisions. According to Hannah Safford, associate director of climate and environment at the Federation of American Scientists, this is a stark dismissal of scientific evidence: “We’ve amassed a great deal of science to demonstrate the impact that climate change is having, and the rollback of endangerment kind of says, ‘Well, we’re just going to put all that science to the side.’”
Science Under Scrutiny
Julie McNamara of the Union of Concerned Scientists has called this decision a watershed moment, reflecting disbelief at the current state of climate policy. The move aligns with a series of actions by the administration, including canceling research grants and reducing funding for scientific endeavors. Robert Howarth, a biogeochemist at Cornell University, expressed his concerns: “I always thought that being a scientist was a highly respected thing when I got my PhD. I don’t know if that’s true any longer.”
The decision was backed by a July proposal citing a report from the Climate Working Group (CWG), which downplayed the risks of climate change. However, this report was met with criticism from the scientific community and was later ruled illegal by a US district court judge.
Controversial Justifications
Despite the scientific backlash, the EPA proceeded with the rescission, arguing it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This stance has been criticized for ignoring the scientific basis of climate change. Scientific societies such as the American Geophysical Union and the American Chemical Society have urged the EPA to reconsider, emphasizing the importance of maintaining scientific integrity in policymaking.
Some organizations, however, have remained silent on the issue. McNamara stresses the importance of scientific societies speaking out, as individual scientists often face limitations in voicing their concerns.
Legal and Political Repercussions
In response to the EPA’s decision, 41 senators, led by Sheldon Whitehouse, have launched an investigation, accusing the agency of pursuing a predetermined outcome. Meanwhile, Massachusetts and California have announced lawsuits challenging the rule, joined by environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Despite the challenges, scientists and environmental advocates remain determined to influence policy. McNamara highlights the resilience of the scientific community in countering inaccurate claims, noting that their efforts have previously led to policy reversals.
On a broader scale, there is a shift towards state and local levels where science continues to play a crucial role in shaping climate policy. These efforts are complemented by initiatives like the Federation of American Scientists’ Center for Regulatory Ingenuity, aimed at developing modern regulatory frameworks to address climate challenges.
While the revocation of the endangerment finding poses significant challenges, Safford remains optimistic about the continued progress in climate science and policy, emphasizing the importance of adapting regulations to modern environmental issues.
Original Story at cen.acs.org