An interview conducted by Jenni Doering with Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School, via Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine.
In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, requiring regulation if they pose a threat to public health. When President Obama took office in 2009, the EPA determined that these gases do endanger human health and welfare, necessitating regulation.
The EPA targeted major sectors like vehicle emissions, power plant smokestacks, and oil and gas extraction emissions. Revoking the endangerment finding would dismantle these regulations and revive a conservative anti-regulatory push from the Reagan era. Repeal efforts face legal challenges, and if successful, states might act independently to curb emissions, expanding regional greenhouse gas initiatives.
Pat Parenteau, formerly EPA regional counsel under President Reagan, offers insights on the implications of this decision.
JENNI DOERING: What are the potential consequences of the EPA’s decision to rescind this finding?
PAT PARENTEAU: The consequences are severe. Repealing the endangerment finding undermines federal carbon pollution regulation across various industries. This decision strips the EPA of its regulatory power, allowing unchecked emissions from sources like oil refineries and cement plants.
During the announcement, Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin celebrated this as the largest deregulatory effort in U.S. history, but it poses substantial risks to public health and welfare.
According to statistics, 18 billion tons of pollution could enter the atmosphere by 2055, exacerbating climate change. This might lead to 58,000 additional deaths and millions more asthma attacks due to climate-related health issues. Fuel prices could rise by 25 cents per gallon by 2035, impacting consumers by $1.7 trillion. While Trump claims this decision saves $1 trillion, it overlooks climate change costs.
DOERING: What is the Trump administration’s rationale for revoking the endangerment finding?
PARENTEAU: They argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA was incorrect. Zeldin claims the Clean Air Act doesn’t grant authority for the actions taken by the Obama and Biden administrations. Their strategy aims to bring this case back to the Supreme Court to overturn the earlier ruling, which could have significant repercussions.
DOERING: Has the Trump EPA addressed climate science in its proposal?
PARENTEAU: Initially, the proposal leaned on climate denial, but they’ve shifted away from contesting science. Zeldin argues that, legally, they lack authority to act, irrespective of the scientific validity.
DOERING: How firm are the legal grounds for the EPA’s action?
PARENTEAU: The EPA can’t act alone. There are three potential scenarios. First, the case may not reach the Supreme Court before Trump’s term ends. If a new president with a stronger commitment to climate action takes office, they could reverse this decision.
Second, if the case reaches the Supreme Court, Trump might lose, maintaining the Massachusetts v. EPA decision. Third, if Trump wins, future presidents would be powerless to reinstate EPA authority without congressional action.
DOERING: Has the endangerment finding been officially revoked, or are legal battles pending?
PARENTEAU: The repeal will take effect 60 days post-publication in the Federal Register. However, challenges by states like California and Massachusetts might result in a stay, pausing the rule during litigation. This legal process could extend beyond three years.
Original Story at insideclimatenews.org