US President Donald Trump recently announced a major change to federal environmental policy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially repealed its 2009 legal finding regarding greenhouse gases. This finding originally stated that such emissions pose a direct threat to human health.
Consequently, this repeal makes the regulation of climate-damaging emissions significantly more difficult. The federal government now lacks the primary legal warrant used to limit these gases. This decision will likely have structural effects on a global scale.
What Was the Endangerment Finding?
The endangerment finding was a crucial legal tool for the Environmental Protection Agency. It was based on significant scientific evidence regarding the impact of emissions. Furthermore, a 2007 Supreme Court ruling vindicated this specific legal approach.
The finding provided the necessary authority for the government to regulate greenhouse gases. Without this mandate, the federal government cannot easily direct the reduction of emissions. This change effectively scrubs out the legal obligation to act on established climate science.
The Historical Roots of the Clean Air Act
To understand this decision, we must look back to the 1970 Clean Air Act. This landmark legislation was passed during the height of the US environmental movement. It empowered the newly formed EPA to identify and regulate dangerous pollutants.
Initially, the agency used this power to control industrial smog and coal ash. However, the scope of the Act expanded over time to meet new challenges. During the George W. Bush presidency, the EPA ruled that greenhouse gases were also pollutants.
The Role of the Supreme Court
Fossil fuel interests quickly challenged the EPA’s expanded definition of air pollutants. This led to the significant 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v EPA. The court eventually ruled five to four in favour of the environmental agency.
The justices decided that carbon dioxide and other gases were indeed “air pollutants.” They concluded that these emissions endangered human health and general welfare. Consequently, the court directed the EPA to assess their impact on the public. Although the Bush administration received this directive, they did not immediately implement the ruling.#
Climate Action Under the Obama Administration
President Barack Obama later used the endangerment finding to drive his climate agenda. He faced a hostile Senate that blocked his attempts to pass an emissions trading bill. Therefore, he relied on executive power to achieve significant environmental goals.
The endangerment finding allowed the EPA to issue new regulations for vehicle emissions. These rules targeted cars, light trucks, and eventually refineries and power plants. These steps represented the first significant US efforts toward national emissions reductions.
The Clean Power Plan and Global Diplomacy
The endangerment finding also underpinned the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. This plan specifically regulated the emissions produced by the nation’s power plants. These domestic actions greatly enhanced US diplomatic credibility on the world stage.
Specifically, it provided a footing for bilateral cooperation with China on clean energy. This cooperation helped build trust between the world’s two largest emitters. Their joint leadership eventually helped get the Paris Agreement over the line in 2015.
The Impact of the Current Repeal
The current administration has been systematically removing restrictions on the fossil fuel industry. If the US is a collection of gas pots with lids, these lids are being lifted. This repeal pulls off the largest lid of all regarding climate emissions.
Unless Congress passes new laws, the federal government now lacks a mandate for direct regulation. The science supporting the endangerment finding has not changed over the last decade. However, the legal requirement for the government to protect public health has been removed.
Structural Effects on Global Climate Goals
The repeal of the endangerment finding creates a vacuum in US environmental leadership. This move could weaken international trust in future climate negotiations and agreements. Other nations may feel less pressure to meet their own emission reduction targets.
Furthermore, the lack of federal regulation could lead to an increase in domestic emissions. This increase would directly contribute to the global rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases. This cycle poses a continued risk to human health and environmental stability worldwide.
The Economic and Life-Saving Argument
Trump argues that the previous determination had no basis in fact. Furthermore, he claims it lacks any real basis in law. He spoke to the media about the importance of fossil fuels.
The President believes fossil fuels have saved millions of lives globally. Additionally, he stated they lifted billions of people out of poverty. For these reasons, he views the restriction of emissions as a mistake. He prioritizes economic growth and energy production over climate-focused mandates.
Ideology and the “Climate Religion”
The new EPA director, Lee Zeldin, shares the President’s skeptical view. Zeldin famously called the endangerment rule the “holy grail of climate change religion”. This phrasing suggests the administration views climate policy as ideological rather than scientific.
Specifically, the Trump administration officially regards climate change as a hoax. Because of this belief, they are dismantling federal climate protections. Trump has already withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. He also pulled the nation out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Narrowing the Scope of the Clean Air Act
The administration is reviving older arguments against federal climate oversight. Director Zeldin argues that original environmental laws were very narrow. He claims the legislation should only apply to local pollutants like smog.
According to this view, the law does not cover greenhouse gases. Zeldin also suggests that the science behind climate change remains unclear. However, many scientists disagree, citing indisputable evidence of harm. They maintain that greenhouse gases directly damage human health and welfare.
The U.S. as a Global Historical Emitter
The U.S. plays a vital role in international climate efforts. Many experts call it the “indispensable state” for the Paris Agreement. Although China has higher annual emissions, the U.S. is the largest historical emitter.
This history makes the U.S. causally responsible for much existing global heating. By removing regulations, the U.S. is now fanning the flames of global warming. This decision will likely increase the intensity of climate impacts worldwide.
The Legal Battle Ahead
This policy shift will immediately trigger intense legal challenges. Environmental groups and various NGOs are preparing to sue the administration. These court cases will likely take a long time to resolve.
However, the Trump administration will probably ignore these legal threats. They plan to move forward with the “drill, baby, drill” slogan. They aim to maximize fossil fuel production as quickly as possible.
The Future of Federal Climate Regulation
If the lawsuits fail, the results could be devastating for climate goals. There will be no overarching federal law to regulate U.S. emissions. This creates a major obstacle for any future Democratic president.
A new leader would lack an easy lever to control gases. They would have to pass new laws through a polarized Congress. Passing such legislation is notoriously difficult in the current political climate.
Action at the Local Level
Despite federal changes, some climate action continues in America. Many cities and states are ratcheting up their own environmental rules. They are working to reduce emissions without waiting for Washington.
This local action provides a way forward during the Trump administration. It ensures that some progress remains steady despite the federal repeal. These states are focusing on clean energy and public health.
Conclusion: A Structural Change
The repeal of the endangerment finding is a structural shift for the world. It removes the legal mandate that required the government to act. This decision prioritizes immediate energy production over long-term environmental stability.
The U.S. is now moving in a different direction than many allies. The global community will be watching the upcoming legal battles closely. The outcome will determine the future of the planet’s climate health.
Important Questions and Answers
How does the endangerment finding relate to public health?
The finding legally classified greenhouse gases as pollutants that harm human health and welfare. This classification allowed the EPA to set safety standards to protect the public.
Why did the Supreme Court get involved in 2007?
Fossil fuel companies sued the EPA to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide. The court ultimately decided that the EPA had the authority to regulate these gases.
Can the government regulate emissions without this finding?
Currently, the federal government lacks the legal mandate for direct regulation without this finding. Congress would need to pass new legislation to grant that authority again.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Did Donald Trump repeal the endangerment finding?
A: Yes, the President announced that the EPA has repealed this 2009 legal finding.
Q: What was the Clean Power Plan?
A: It was an Obama-era policy that used the endangerment finding to limit power plant emissions.
Q: Does the science regarding greenhouse gases still support the finding?
A: Yes, the scientific evidence remains the same, but the legal obligation has been removed.
Q: Which law gave the EPA the power to declare pollutants?
A: The Clean Air Act of 1970 granted the EPA this specific regulatory authority.
