The Environmental Protection Agency recently delivered a monumental announcement: it has officially revoked a key scientific determination that forms the very bedrock of the government’s ability to fight climate change.
This pivotal 2009 ruling, known as the “endangerment finding,” might be unfamiliar to many, but its influence on environmental regulations—from vehicle emissions to power plant operations—has been immense.
By dismantling this finding, the Trump administration effectively challenges the global scientific consensus on climate change. A vast majority of experts agree that our planet is warming at an alarming rate, leading to more intense storms, widespread coral reef destruction, melting glaciers, and numerous other devastating consequences.
To help you understand this complex issue, here’s a closer look at the endangerment finding and its profound significance.
What Exactly is the Endangerment Finding?
At its core, the endangerment finding is a declaration that six specific greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, pose a clear and present danger to human health, both today and for generations to come. These gases are primarily released when we burn fossil fuels in activities like driving cars or operating power plants.
The original Clean Air Act of 1970 mandated that the EPA regulate airborne pollutants harmful to human health. This included setting limits on substances like smog and soot, which are well-known contributors to respiratory issues like asthma.
However, this foundational environmental law didn’t explicitly address greenhouse gases. The endangerment finding filled this gap, asserting that the EPA must regulate them because these gases trap heat in our atmosphere, leading to a cascade of health risks for people.
For instance, the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere fosters warmer, wetter environments, which in turn accelerate the spread of diseases like Lyme disease. Moreover, these gases intensify hurricanes, exacerbate heat waves, and drive other extreme weather events that directly threaten lives and cause widespread injuries.
Why is the Trump Administration Targeting This Finding?
President Trump has consistently dismissed climate change as a “hoax,” even making light of rising sea levels by suggesting they would simply create “a little more beachfront property.”
From the moment he assumed office, Mr. Trump’s administration has insisted that addressing climate change is not a governmental responsibility. Instead, the president and his cabinet have actively promoted increased production and consumption of fossil fuels across the nation.
The administration has also worked to lift pollution restrictions on the coal, oil, and gas industries, arguing that these limits are financially burdensome. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has specifically asserted that previous Democratic administrations leveraged the endangerment finding to impose “trillions of dollars” in regulations on these industries, and that rolling back these rules will boost the U.S. economy.
Already, the EPA is in the process of dismantling numerous regulations from the Biden era that aimed to curb pollution from sources like automobile tailpipes, power plant smokestacks, and oil and gas wells.
However, revoking the endangerment finding itself represents an even more drastic move. By eliminating the fundamental scientific justification for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, this repeal could effectively block any future presidential administration from re-establishing climate protections.
What Scientific Arguments Does the Administration Present?
Mr. Zeldin contends that the endangerment finding relies on faulty climate models that inaccurately inflated projections for global warming over the next several decades.
“To arrive at the 2009 endangerment finding, the agency adopted the most dire scientific outlooks,” Mr. Zeldin stated during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” last year. He added, “The good news is that many of those pessimistic scientific assumptions from 2009 simply didn’t materialize.”
While Mr. Zeldin’s assertion holds some truth—certain 2009 predictions are indeed less probable now due to global efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the growth of renewable energy—
the Earth is still projected to warm by an average of 2.6 degrees Celsius (4.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the century’s end. This degree of warming could trigger catastrophic outcomes, including the extinction of almost all coral reefs and a sea level rise so substantial it would inundate coastal regions.
What Does the Scientific Community Say?
Scientists are united in their message: the perils of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions were undeniable in 2009, and the evidence has only strengthened in the years that followed.
Furthermore, our scientific grasp of how global warming influences specific weather catastrophes and the proliferation of infectious diseases has undergone remarkable advancements in the last decade.
“The fundamental science linking greenhouse gases from fossil fuels to climate change has been understood for over a century,” stated Robert Howarth, an ecology and environmental biology professor at Cornell University.
Since the endangerment finding was first established, Dr. Howarth emphasized, “the science has become even more robust, especially concerning the attribution of harm to our changing climate. We can now confidently state that increasing CO2 and methane levels are indeed altering the climate, resulting in longer and more severe droughts, more intense floods and hurricanes, and larger, more destructive wildfires.”
Abigail Swann, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, argues that the evidence gathered since 2009 directly contradicts Mr. Zeldin’s stance. This includes undeniable trends like prolonged droughts, heavier rainfall leading to more severe flooding, and more ferocious wildfires, such as those that devastated Los Angeles just last year.
“We continue to observe significant impacts, many of which are already underway,” Dr. Swann noted.
What Legal Arguments Does the Administration Make?
The administration’s legal strategy rests on two primary arguments.
Firstly, they contend that the Clean Air Act is intended solely for “local” pollutants, such as soot and smog, which directly harm people upon exposure. Therefore, they argue, the law should not apply to gases like carbon dioxide and methane, which persist in the atmosphere and spread globally.
This argument echoes one made by the George W. Bush administration two decades prior, which was definitively rejected by the Supreme Court. In the pivotal 2007 case, Massachusetts v. E.P.A., the court affirmed the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, provided these gases posed a threat to public health and welfare.
Secondly, the EPA claims it cannot impose limits on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, citing a recent Supreme Court decision. This ruling states that the EPA cannot enact regulations with significant economic impacts without explicit congressional approval. The agency asserts that strict tailpipe emission standards would fall under this umbrella, as they would compel car manufacturers to transition from traditional combustion engines to electric vehicles.
What’s the Legal Expert Opinion?
Some environmental legal scholars view the Trump administration’s reintroduction of a legal argument previously rejected by the Supreme Court under the Bush administration as a precarious strategy.
However, these experts acknowledge that the Supreme Court could still diminish the EPA’s authority on global warming without outright overturning the Massachusetts v. E.P.A. precedent. This could happen, for example, if the justices choose to endorse the Trump administration’s more restrictive interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
“The court wouldn’t necessarily need to overrule the Massachusetts case to inflict substantial damage,” observed Michael Gerrard, a Columbia University environmental law expert.
Conversely, other legal specialists suggest that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority might be receptive to the EPA’s arguments regarding the absence of explicit congressional authorization.
Jeffrey Holmstead, an energy attorney at Bracewell and a former EPA official during the George W. Bush administration, believes this argument “could sway a majority of justices.”
What Are the Potential Personal Impacts?
The Trump administration asserts that removing limits on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the cost of new cars. However, experts express considerable skepticism.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced to reporters that the administration projects “average savings of over $2,400 per vehicle for popular light-duty cars, SUVs, and trucks.”
The administration has not provided a detailed explanation for these figures. Nevertheless, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers stated via email that consumers would experience “huge relief,” while EPA Press Secretary Brigit Hirsch added, “it’s simply common sense that by restoring consumer choice and eliminating expensive government mandates, vehicles become more affordable.”
Despite these claims, Alan Jenn, an associate professor at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, highlighted that the Trump administration’s assessment implicitly assumes future gas prices will fall, without offering any justification. He also pointed out that their calculations use outdated data, failing to account for the rapidly decreasing cost of electric vehicle batteries, which is making EVs more affordable.
“It’s challenging to find any mathematical basis in their assessment that doesn’t appear, frankly, somewhat absurd,” Dr. Jenn concluded, further noting that potential tariffs imposed by Mr. Trump on imported vehicles and parts could ironically lead to higher car prices.