The Trump administration is poised to make significant changes in U.S. climate policy by attempting to revoke a fundamental 2009 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruling known as the endangerment finding.
This ruling, which recognized that pollutants from fossil fuel combustion, such as carbon dioxide and methane, could be regulated under the Clean Air Act, has been the cornerstone of various federal initiatives aimed at combating climate change.
Currently, the EPA’s proposal to undo this finding is under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Environmentalists and climate advocates are expressing deep concerns about the implications of this move.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin heralded the proposal as a major victory for deregulation, stating, “Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.”
He further claimed that the proposal would ease living costs for American families, stimulate energy production, and bring back auto jobs.
The backdrop for this regulatory shift includes alarming climate-related events, such as unprecedented heat records, destructive wildfires in Los Angeles, and harsher hurricanes correlated with rising ocean temperatures.
While the proposed changes could face judicial challenges, if upheld, they would accelerate President Trump’s efforts to dismantle the climate agenda established under President Biden and complicate future administrations’ ability to control greenhouse gas emissions.
On his first day of this term, President Trump ordered the EPA to assess the legality and relevance of the endangerment finding, a measure that aligns with his administration’s broader initiative to withdraw from previous climate commitments.
The Supreme Court previously ruled in 2007’s Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency had an obligation to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
In 2009, the EPA, under the Obama administration, concluded that greenhouse gases posed a threat to public health.
Then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson termed the finding a crucial moment in U.S. climate policy, marking the first serious governmental response to greenhouse gas emissions and the potential for clean energy reforms.
The endangerment finding serves as the blueprint for regulating emissions from power plants, vehicles, and the oil and gas sector.
Rachel Cleetus, policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, emphasized that the intent of the Trump administration’s proposal is clear: to weaken or negate the endangerment finding to escape the EPA’s mandate to manage climate change-related pollution.
Cleetus characterized the move as a favor for the fossil fuel industry and a rollback of existing pollution regulations.
Notably, the EPA has consistently reaffirmed the endangerment finding, even in 2022 when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, incorporating language that defines greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, thus complicating any effort to abandon it.
Should the administration succeed in revoking this key finding, it could pave the way for dismantling greenhouse gas regulations on power plants and vehicles — priorities Trump has championed.
In June, the Trump administration announced plans to remove limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-based power plants, arguing that the pollution from these plants is minimal within the global context and is on a declining trend.
The administration is framing these changes as an essential response to the so-called national energy emergency declared by President Trump, aiming to revive the U.S. economy through increased fossil fuel production.
The administration’s stance posits that the previous administration improperly established the endangerment finding and exceeded its legal mandate under the Clean Air Act.
The Trump EPA maintains that earlier administrators overstepped their authority, imposing significant economic burdens on Americans.
Repeating long-standing Republican assertions, Trump officials argue that the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling did not obligate the EPA to manage greenhouse gas emissions and that subsequent decisions have raised further doubts about the legality of the 2009 ruling.
Environmental advocates, however, view the current proposal as a calculated effort to favor fossil fuel interests, with Dan Becker of the Center for Biological Diversity asserting that this decision compromises public health and environmental integrity in favor of powerful oil companies.
In a notable instance, Trump reportedly sought to solicit financial support from oil executives in exchange for rolling back environmental regulations.
Critics of the endangerment finding question the scientific consensus on climate change and see an opportunity to challenge a decision they have opposed for years.
Daren Bakst from the Competitive Enterprise Institute argues that the harms predicted by the endangerment finding are largely speculative and insists that even complete U.S. emissions reductions would have negligible effects on global temperatures.
Under the Paris Agreement, the U.S. historically has been the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and committed to contribute to global emission reduction efforts, although Trump has signed orders to withdraw from this accord.
If the EPA concludes that the 2009 endangerment finding is outdated, it could obstruct future regulatory measures targeting greenhouse gas emissions.
Bakst suggests that a ruling in favor of the Trump administration’s proposal would simplify the repeal of existing regulations that currently hinge on the 2009 finding.
As the review of the EPA’s proposal continues, the conversation surrounding climate change and regulatory policy remains heated, with major implications for the environment and public health in the years to come.
image source from：npr
