BY ROSEMARY
The Trump administration on Thursday rescinded a cornerstone scientific determination that has anchored U.S. climate policy for more than a decade and a half, marking the most sweeping rollback yet of federal efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
In a rule finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency, the administration formally withdrew the 2009 “endangerment finding,” a declaration issued during the Obama presidency that concluded carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The finding has served as the legal foundation for nearly every major federal regulation limiting climate-warming emissions from automobiles, power plants, oil and gas facilities and other industrial sources under the Clean Air Act.
President Donald Trump described the repeal as “the single largest deregulatory action in American history, by far,” portraying the move as a correction to what he called years of excessive federal intervention. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin characterized the original finding as emblematic of regulatory overreach, arguing it enabled successive Democratic administrations to impose costly climate policies that burdened businesses and consumers.
The 2009 determination followed a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the justices held that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the agency must regulate them if they are found to endanger public health or welfare. The Obama-era EPA concluded that such a threat existed, citing extensive scientific evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to rising global temperatures, extreme weather, sea-level rise and other climate-related impacts.
Since then, courts have repeatedly upheld the endangerment finding against legal challenges. A 2023 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reaffirmed its validity, reinforcing its central role in federal climate regulation.
Environmental law experts say rescinding the finding could unravel a broad web of emissions standards built upon it. Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA School of Law, said overturning the determination would create far-reaching legal and regulatory uncertainty, potentially destabilizing existing rules governing pollution from vehicles, power plants and heavy industry.
Environmental groups denounced the move as an unprecedented assault on federal authority to address climate change. They argue that the scientific case underpinning the endangerment finding has only strengthened since 2009, pointing to intensifying heat waves, destructive wildfires, catastrophic flooding and other climate-driven disasters in the United States and globally.
Gina McCarthy, who served as EPA administrator under President Barack Obama and later as White House climate adviser during the Biden administration, called the repeal reckless. She said the agency has a clear legal and scientific responsibility to regulate greenhouse gases and warned that dismantling the finding would undermine efforts to protect communities from worsening climate impacts.
Medical professionals also raised alarms. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, said weakening emissions standards would have tangible health consequences. Increased air pollution, she said, is linked to higher rates of asthma attacks in children, premature births, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.
David Doniger, a climate policy expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the administration appears to be using the repeal as a mechanism to invalidate not only current greenhouse gas regulations but also to constrain future administrations from crafting new climate rules. By removing the legal trigger for regulation under the Clean Air Act, he said, the EPA could effectively neutralize its authority to address global warming through existing statutory tools.
The EPA’s action follows an executive order from Trump directing the agency to review the legality and ongoing applicability of the endangerment finding. Conservative activists and some Republican lawmakers have long argued that climate regulations impose excessive costs on the U.S. economy, particularly on energy producers and the automotive industry.
Myron Ebell, a conservative policy advocate who has questioned prevailing climate science, praised the repeal as a necessary step to restore what he described as economic and energy rationality.
Alongside revoking the endangerment finding, the EPA announced additional measures aimed at easing climate-related regulations. The agency said it will propose a two-year delay to a Biden-era rule that tightened greenhouse gas limits for cars and light trucks. The delay, officials said, would allow time to reassess the rule in light of slower-than-anticipated growth in electric vehicle sales.
The agency also said it plans to eliminate tax credits for automakers that install automatic start-stop ignition systems designed to reduce fuel consumption and emissions by shutting off engines at stoplights. Zeldin dismissed the technology as unpopular with drivers and unnecessary.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has joined Zeldin in efforts to scale back tailpipe emissions standards introduced during the Biden administration. Those rules were designed to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles by setting progressively stricter limits on pollution from gasoline-powered cars and trucks. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
In December, the administration proposed weakening vehicle mileage requirements that dictate how far new vehicles must travel on a gallon of gasoline. Trump said loosening those standards would lower vehicle prices and expand consumer choice by ensuring continued availability of gasoline-powered models.
Critics counter that relaxing mileage and emissions standards would lock in higher pollution levels for years, as vehicles remain on the road for more than a decade on average. Environmental advocates warn that maintaining higher-emitting fleets could exacerbate climate change and air quality problems, disproportionately affecting children, older adults and communities already burdened by pollution.
Legal challenges to the EPA’s repeal are widely expected. Given the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling and subsequent appellate decisions affirming the endangerment finding, the administration’s action is poised to trigger a high-stakes battle over the scope of federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases and the future trajectory of U.S. climate policy.
Original article
Comments