Environmental (Commonwealth Union)_ The Trump administration has launched a request for the destruction of the legal finding that greenhouse emissions endanger the public’s health, something that would undo fifteen years of environmental regulations and tie America‘s hands in the global battle against warming. The 2009 “Endangerment Finding,” a scientific conclusion that forms the basis for legal precedent restricting carbon pollution from cars, factories, and power plants under the Clean Air Act, is at risk.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, whose remarks were replete with ideological fervor, indicated the proposed repeal as “driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion” in an appearance last week on a podcast. The administration contends phasing out these standards will save $54 billion annually by eliminating what they indicated as burdensome regulations, like electric vehicle requirements. Yet green economists warn that the true costs reduced to unmitigated emissions, accelerated climate impacts, and public health expenses can be far greater than such touted savings.
The agency action is considered a rejection of established science. The first finding issued from 2007 Supreme Court decision upholding greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act was then supported by the Obama EPA’s aggressive examination of climate science. The present EPA seeks to overturn this scientific consensus through administrative decree, when the existing body of evidence demonstrates that carbon emissions are producing rising temperatures, extreme weather, and health effects from mounting air pollution.
Legal experts forecast that these will be bitterly fought court battles. “This is not one regulation it would unmake the entire system for regulating greenhouse gases,” cautioned Richard Revesz, former Biden regulatory head. The administration’s case rests on disputed economic assertions that climate policy stifles growth, a position opposed by the clean energy boom that has employed workers while reducing emissions in numerous states.
Escalating tensions between federal retreat and state climate action have seen some governors vowing to maintain clean car standards and emissions requirements in defiance of EPA rollbacks.
As the new rule goes out for public comment, it raises a fundamental question: Is it constitutional for a government to ignore settled science when creating public health policy? The answer will determine if America continues to fight climate change or is the only developed country that is actively reversing environmental protections as the planet warms. The proposal’s impact extends beyond bureaucratic backroom politics, affecting the air millions of us breathe and our shared climate future.
The administration’s bet may ultimately fail in court, but the harm can be done first—every month of regulatory uncertainty delays clean energy investment and emissions reductions. As the world’s second-largest emitter retreats from climate commitments, the global effort to curb warming faces a potentially catastrophic slowdown.
