日本語
한국어
Tiếng Việt
简体中文
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration is pushing to overturn a pivotal 2009 finding that has served as the bedrock for numerous federal climate change policies. This “endangerment finding” determined that pollutants from burning fossil fuels, such as carbon dioxide and methane, pose a threat to public health and welfare, thus allowing their regulation under the Clean Air Act.
A new proposal from the EPA, currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget, seeks to revoke this long-standing determination. The potential reversal has prompted strong reactions, with environmental groups and climate advocates expressing deep concern, while the administration touts it as a significant economic victory.
“Greatest Day of Deregulation” Announced Amidst Climate Extremes
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the proposal in March, declaring, “Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.” Zeldin stated the move aims to “drive a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.”
This controversial initiative comes despite a backdrop of escalating climate challenges, including the hottest year ever recorded globally, devastating climate-fueled wildfires in Los Angeles, and warmer ocean temperatures contributing to the increased intensity and inland damage potential of hurricanes like Helene.
Potential Ramifications and Legal Battle Ahead
While the administration’s move could still face judicial challenges and be overturned by courts, its success would significantly advance President Trump’s efforts to dismantle the climate agenda of former President Biden. It would also erect substantial barriers for future administrations seeking to curb human-caused greenhouse gas pollution driving global warming.
The effort to repeal this cornerstone of U.S. climate action began on President Trump’s second term’s inaugural day, when he signed an executive order directing the EPA administrator to review the “legality and continuing applicability” of the endangerment finding.
The Genesis of U.S. Climate Action: A Look Back
The foundation for federal greenhouse gas regulation was laid in 2007 when the Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, mandated that the agency address carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Following this, the Obama administration’s EPA officially declared in 2009 that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endangered public health.
Then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson hailed the 2009 decision as a historic moment for the United States, marking a serious commitment to tackling greenhouse gas pollution and embracing clean energy reform. This endangerment finding subsequently underpinned regulations targeting climate pollution from coal and gas-fired power plants, vehicle exhaust, and methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
Critics Denounce “Giveaway to Fossil Fuel Industry”
Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, asserted, “The Trump administration’s intent is clear: They want to undermine or overturn the endangerment finding so as to evade EPA’s legal responsibility to address the harms caused by climate change.” She characterized the proposal as “simply a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry” and an attempt to undo crucial pollution standards.
Adding complexity to the administration’s endeavor, the EPA had previously reaffirmed the 2009 endangerment finding multiple times. Furthermore, in 2022, Congress reinforced the legal standing of greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act within the climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act, making an outright abandonment of the finding more challenging.
However, if the administration prevails, it would streamline President Trump’s broader objectives, including the elimination of greenhouse gas limits for coal and gas power plants. In June, the Trump administration already unveiled plans to repeal all such limits, arguing that U.S. power plant emissions constitute a minor fraction of global emissions and are already declining, thus implying minimal health effects from their elimination.
Administration’s Legal Rationale and “Unleashing American Energy”
On January 20, President Trump declared a “national energy emergency” and signed his “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, intensifying his administration’s pivot from Biden’s climate agenda toward a deeper embrace of fossil fuels. His order articulated a goal to “restore American prosperity,” echoing his inauguration promise: “We will drill, baby, drill.”
The Trump administration’s legal argument against the 2009 finding asserts that the Obama-era EPA established it in a “flawed and unorthodox way,” overstepping its legal authority and imposing “trillions of dollars of costs on Americans.” They reinterpret the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision, claiming it did not explicitly mandate regulation of emissions from specific sources, and cite more recent Supreme Court rulings as further questioning the 2009 finding’s legality.
Environmental Groups Warn of Public Health and Ecological Damage
Environmental organizations view the proposal as directly benefiting fossil fuel corporations, which President Trump actively courted during his campaign. Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, stated, “By revoking this key scientific finding our government is putting fealty to Big Oil over sound science and people’s health.” He warned that these proposals represent “a giant gift to oil companies that will do real damage to people, wildlife and future generations.” In 2024, Trump reportedly suggested oil executives contribute $1 billion to his presidential bid in exchange for rolling back environmental regulations.
Skeptics See Opportunity, While Critics Predict Prolonged Legal Battle
Daren Bakst, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a proponent of regulatory reform, welcomes the move. He argues that the potential harms cited in the 2009 endangerment finding are “speculative at best” and echoes a common conservative viewpoint: “Even if the United States eliminated all of its greenhouse gas emissions, it would have little to no measurable effect on global temperatures.”
It’s important to note that the U.S. holds the distinction of being the largest historical emitter of man-made climate pollution and, under the Paris climate agreement, has committed to global emission reduction efforts, a pact from which Trump has issued a directive to withdraw the U.S.
Bakst believes that if the EPA successfully nullifies the 2009 endangerment finding, it “would preclude future greenhouse gas regulations” and make it “easy to repeal existing rules that are predicated on the 2009 finding.” However, such a scenario remains years away. The administration must navigate public comment periods, formal rulemaking processes, and likely face significant legal challenges, promising a long and arduous battle ahead.