Defying Climate Science: The Bold Actions of Lee Zeldin and the Trump-Era EPA

This week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin made waves with new plans that could undermine climate science. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) took a significant step to protect our planet.

The EPA seems serious about scrapping the “endangerment finding.” This rule, established in 2009, classifies six greenhouse gases—like carbon dioxide and methane—as harmful to public health and the environment. It also calls out vehicles as major contributors to air pollution. This finding forms the backbone of U.S. climate action, providing the legal framework necessary for tackling climate change.

Without it, the U.S. might struggle to be a player in international climate efforts. Recently, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion asserting that international law requires protecting the climate from human-made emissions. This contrasts sharply with former President Trump’s view, where he called climate change a “great hoax.”

The court emphasized that a clean environment is essential for basic human rights like health and adequate living conditions. While this opinion is nonbinding, it still gives hope, especially since over 130 nations supported Vanuatu, the Pacific island that led this case.

Despite some concerns, we haven’t seen a widespread retreat from climate action globally. Many countries are still committed to making significant changes. The U.S., however, appears increasingly isolated as it drifts from cooperative international norms, all while promoting an “America First” agenda that leads to environmental degradation.

The fallout from weakening climate rules does more than slow progress. It dismantles the structures needed for comprehensive solutions. We’re not just kicking the can down the road; we’re facing real risks of losing vital systems for recovery.

As these changes take hold, the intensity of the Trump administration’s approach to climate policy is notably harsher than before. This shift could imperil both our environment and our future capacity to reclaim lost ground in climate leadership.

For more details on the significance of the endangerment finding, you can read here. And for context on international obligations, check this report from the ICJ.

Source link