The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to retract the foundational legal authority it holds for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, a move that could significantly alter U.S. climate policy. The decision draws mixed reactions from various stakeholders, setting the stage for potential legal battles.
“President Trump will be joined by Administrator Lee Zeldin to formalize the rescission of the 2009 Obama-era endangerment finding,” stated White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt during a recent briefing. She described the action as “the largest deregulatory action in American history,” projected to save citizens $1.3 trillion by eliminating what she termed “crushing regulations.”
The 2009 endangerment finding by the EPA identified greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane as contributors to global warming, posing risks to public health and welfare. This finding has been pivotal under the Clean Air Act, influencing regulations like emissions standards for vehicles and mandates for fossil fuel companies to report emissions.
While the details of the repeal have yet to be fully disclosed, the EPA’s draft released in August hinted at abolishing all greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. Leavitt indicated that reducing vehicle costs, including cars, SUVs, and trucks, is also part of the EPA’s plan, suggesting possible relaxation of vehicle emissions rules.
This regulatory shift threatens to dismantle numerous U.S. climate initiatives aimed at curbing pollution unless it is overturned by courts, as environmental groups are already preparing litigation. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has also proposed repealing carbon dioxide standards for power plants, promising further review of policies reliant on the endangerment finding, including methane regulations.
Environmental advocates, such as Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council, have criticized the potential repeal. Bapna described it as “the single biggest attack in U.S. history on federal authority to tackle the climate crisis,” pointing to recent natural disasters as evidence of climate change’s impacts.
Conversely, the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, supports the EPA’s decision. James Taylor, the institute’s president, criticized the original endangerment finding as “scientifically flawed” and politically motivated.
The EPA argues that the 2009 finding overstated climate risks and neglected the benefits of increased carbon dioxide, such as enhanced plant growth. However, prominent scientific organizations have contested these claims, emphasizing the urgency of addressing climate change.
In light of legal precedents like West Virginia v. EPA, the agency notes its diminished authority to regulate greenhouse gases. This Supreme Court ruling limited the EPA’s ability to unilaterally shift energy production away from coal.
Despite these challenges, the EPA’s reliance on a controversial report commissioned by Energy Secretary Chris Wright has drawn criticism. A judge recently found that the report’s working group violated transparency laws, casting further doubt on the agency’s position.
Scientific bodies, such as the American Geophysical Union and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, have defended the original endangerment finding. These groups argue that climate change, driven by human activities, is accelerating, with severe consequences for the planet.
As the EPA moves forward with its rule change, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental organizations are gearing up for a legal showdown, challenging the agency’s efforts to dismantle climate protections.
Original Story at www.nbcnews.com