Boykoff’s Take: Unpacking the Myths Behind Rescinding, Repealing, and Repelling Climate Change Truths

In a bold move, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to roll back a significant 2009 regulation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. He described this as “the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States.” This regulation, known as the “endangerment finding,” has been crucial for public health and environmental protection.

Starting now, there’s a 45-day window for the public to voice their opinions on this proposal, with a deadline on September 15. You can share your thoughts here.

Many experts have voiced concerns about this proposal. Environmental scientists remind us that pollutants like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane from fossil fuels significantly contribute to climate change. The current proposals seem to ignore the overwhelming evidence linking greenhouse gases to rising temperatures and health risks.

Historically, the United States was once at the forefront of recognizing climate issues. Back in the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson’s advisory committees highlighted the severe impacts of air pollution. They warned that emissions from burning fossil fuels were likely to disrupt the planet’s climate. Their predictions were not just scientific musings—they were backed by rigorous research.

In 1970, the Clean Air Act was established, allowing the EPA to set standards for air pollution. This initiative culminated in a landmark 2007 Supreme Court ruling affirming that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases as harmful pollutants. This ruling was instrumental in the development of the endangerment finding in 2009, which is now at risk.

Recent surveys indicate that a significant portion of the public supports strong regulations on carbon emissions, reflecting growing concern about climate change. Online discussions and social media trends show widespread outrage over the proposed rollback. Many believe that erasing these protections takes the country backward in addressing climate challenges.

As the September 15 comment deadline approaches, it’s important for individuals to share their views. This proposal marks a critical juncture in the ongoing struggle between environmental protection and industrial interests. The future of public health and climate stability hinges on the decisions we make today.

Source link

opinion,opinion columnists,commentary,latest headlines