A Potential Rollback of Climate Change Policy: The EPA’s Endangerment Finding

Introduction: A Shift in Climate Policy

In a move that could significantly impact U.S. climate policy, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin has reportedly urged the Trump administration to reconsider a critical scientific finding that underpins federal climate regulations. The 2009 endangerment finding, established under the Clean Air Act, determines that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare, serving as the legal basis for numerous climate-related rules. According to sources briefed on the matter, Zeldin’s recommendation, submitted to the White House, calls for a rewrite of this foundational document. This action aligns with an executive order from President Donald Trump, issued on his first day in office, which directed the EPA to review the legality and applicability of the endangerment finding.

The potential rollback of this finding has sparked widespread concern among environmental groups and legal experts, who argue that such a move would undermine decades of climate action and contradict overwhelming scientific evidence. Meanwhile, Trump allies and climate skeptics view it as a crucial step toward dismantling what they describe as burdensome regulations. This development highlights the ongoing tension between the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda and the scientific consensus on climate change.

The Significance of the Endangerment Finding

The 2009 endangerment finding, established during the Obama administration, is a cornerstone of U.S. climate policy. It provides the legal justification for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as power plants, vehicles, and industrial facilities under the Clean Air Act. Repealing or rewriting this finding would effectively strip the EPA of its authority to enforce many of these rules, potentially nullifying a wide range of climate protections.

Critics of the finding, including former Trump transition advisers like Steve Milloy and Myron Ebell, argue that it has been used to justify economically damaging regulations. They claim that repealing it would remove the basis for what they describe as excessive and costly climate policies. Milloy, a vocal climate skeptic, asserted, “If you pull this out, everything the EPA does on climate goes away.” This perspective reflects the broader goal of the Trump administration and its allies to roll back environmental regulations they view as hindering economic growth.

However, environmental groups and legal experts warn that attempting to overturn the endangerment finding would be a legally and scientifically uphill battle. David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council called the effort a “fool’s errand,” emphasizing that courts have repeatedly upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The scientific consensus on climate change, supported by decades of research, further complicates any attempt to challenge the finding.

The Political Backdrop: Trump’s Climate Agenda

President Trump has long been a vocal critic of climate change policies, often referring to them as a “green new scam” or a “hoax.” His administration has consistently sought to dismantle Obama-era climate regulations, including the Clean Power Plan, and has withdrawn the U.S. from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The push to revisit the endangerment finding represents the latest salvo in this effort, with potential implications for the entire climate regulatory framework.

At a recent Cabinet meeting, Trump revealed that Administrator Zeldin is also moving to reduce the EPA’s workforce by approximately 65%, further signaling the administration’s intent to curtail the agency’s role in addressing climate change. This move has been met with praise from climate skeptics, who see it as a step toward reversing what they view as overreach by the EPA. However, environmental advocates argue that such actions undermine the agency’s mission to protect public health and the environment.

Expert Reactions: Science vs. Politics

The scientific community has been vocal in its opposition to any attempt to overturn the endangerment finding. Climate scientists like Michael Mann and Michael Oppenheimer have emphasized the overwhelming evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and its far-reaching consequences. Mann described the EPA’s action as “just the latest form of Republican climate denial,” while Oppenheimer called the notion that greenhouse gases do not endanger public health “preposterous.”

Legal experts also caution that overturning the finding would face significant legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA established that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if they are found to endanger public health. Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA, noted that any attempt to reverse the finding would “raise havoc” and likely fail in court. Despite these warnings, the Trump administration appears determined to proceed, driven by a broader agenda to limit the EPA’s regulatory authority.

The Broader Implications: Climate Change and Public Health

The endangerment finding is not just a legal or political tool; it has real-world implications for public health and the environment. Climate change is already manifesting in more frequent and severe weather events, such as hurricanes, wildfires, and heatwaves, which disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Reversing the finding would pave the way for the elimination of critical regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating these impacts.

Environmental advocates argue that the timing of this effort is particularly alarming, as the world faces escalating climate crises. Peter Zalzal of the Environmental Defense Fund described the directive to reconsider the finding as “cynical and deeply concerning,” given the overwhelming scientific evidence and the ongoing devastation caused by climate change. The move also aligns with a broader blueprint for a hard-right turn in American governance, known as Project 2025, which includes recommendations to roll back environmental protections.

Conclusion: A Battle Over Science and Regulation

The debate over the endangerment finding reflects a deeper struggle between science, politics, and regulation. While the Trump administration and its allies frame the effort as a necessary step to curb overreach and promote economic growth, environmental groups and scientists warn of the dire consequences of ignoring the scientific consensus on climate change. The outcome of this battle will have far-reaching implications for U.S. climate policy, public health, and the environment.

As the administration moves forward with its plan, the courts and Congress are likely to play a significant role in determining the fate of the endangerment finding. For now, the situation remains uncertain, with the potential for chaotic and far-reaching consequences. One thing is clear: the fight over the endangerment finding is not just about regulation—it is about the future of climate action in the United States and beyond.