Experts Warn Trump’s Move to Dismiss Greenhouse Gas Findings Conflicts with Established Science

The Trump administration is looking to remove a vital finding from 2009 that recognized the health risks linked to greenhouse gases. This decision could have serious consequences for how the U.S. tackles climate change.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to rescind the “endangerment finding,” which concluded that carbon dioxide and five other gases pose risks to American health. This finding allows the government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. If removed, it could lift limits on pollution from vehicles and power plants, pushing us further into a climate crisis.

Experts highlight that the effects of climate change have grown evident since 2009. Jason Burnett, a former EPA official, stated, “The science was clear then and is even clearer now.” He noted the increasing severity of extreme weather events — from floods to wildfires — that disrupt lives and illustrate the real harms of climate change.

Further compounding this issue is the fact that since 2009, eight of the ten hottest years on record have occurred. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that extreme weather events have led to 255 disasters costing over $1 billion each. In a 2023 climate assessment, it was made clear that “human-caused climate change effects are worsening across the United States.”

Interestingly, public sentiment is shifting as well. A recent survey showed that over 70% of Americans believe climate change is a major threat, highlighting a growing awareness of its real-life impacts. Social media campaigns have further amplified these concerns, pushing for decisive action on climate issues.

Removing the endangerment finding could leave future administrations with fewer tools to combat climate change. Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist, warned that such a repeal could be seen as “criminal negligence.” He emphasized that climate disruption, largely due to fossil fuel dependence, is an escalating issue that demands immediate attention.

Contrary to the administration’s justification for the rollback, legal experts suggest that the likelihood of success in court is low. Richard Revesz from NYU School of Law notes that the legal basis for the repeal appears flimsy and may lead to lengthy disputes.

Even if the courts intervene, the fallout from a repeal could have lasting effects. Critics of the plan argue that it will enable corporate polluters to cause irreversible damage during the legal process. Lena Moffitt, executive director of Evergreen Action, called the plan “cruel and absurd.”

In this urgent climate context, understanding the implications of such regulatory changes is crucial. As experts repeatedly reaffirm the dangers of greenhouse gases, it becomes increasingly clear: the fight against climate change is not just a policy issue — it’s a matter of public health and safety.



Source link