Regulating climate emissions in the U.S. just got tougher. Recently, President Donald Trump announced that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reversed its 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health. This finding had allowed the federal government to regulate these emissions, supporting initiatives like the Clean Power Plan from the Obama administration.
The EPA’s 2009 finding followed a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 that established greenhouse gases as pollutants. However, without this legal basis, the federal government lacks the authority to regulate emissions directly. Although the science about climate change remains solid, the legal framework to address it has been removed.
Imagine the U.S. as a pot of greenhouse gases. The Trump administration has been removing the lids from these pots, leading to an increase in emissions. This move could have serious implications worldwide.
Historically, the Clean Air Act of 1970 allowed the EPA to declare pollutants that harm public health. Initially, it covered substances like smog but was later expanded to include greenhouse gases during the George W. Bush administration. Following the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, the EPA was prompted to assess the risks of these gases. Unfortunately, the Bush administration hesitated to enforce regulations based on this ruling.
When President Obama took office, he aimed to tackle climate change through executive action, especially after his proposed emissions trading bill failed in Congress. The endangerment finding empowered him to regulate emissions more effectively, leading to stricter standards for vehicles and power plants. These efforts not only marked significant progress in emissions reductions but also bolstered the U.S.’s credibility during international climate negotiations, particularly the Paris Agreement in 2015.
Trump argues that the previous endangerment finding harms Americans, labeling it as a misguided commitment to climate change. His administration’s actions have fostered skepticism about climate science, even pulling the U.S. out of key international agreements aimed at combating climate change. Critics argue that the U.S. has a crucial role in addressing climate issues, given its historical emissions contributions.
Research underscores the serious health impacts of climate change, with the World Health Organization noting that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations lead to significant public health risks. The EPA has a responsibility to address these pollutants, and critics believe Trump’s approach undermines this duty.
The reversal of this regulation is expected to spark legal challenges. Environment groups and NGOs will likely contest this decision in court. If the Trump administration ignores these challenges, the consequences could be dire for federal climate action. Future administrations committed to climate progress will face a stringent political landscape while trying to pass new legislation.
Despite these obstacles, state and local governments are stepping up efforts to combat climate change. Initiatives at these levels may continue to advance even if federal regulations stall. No matter what happens next, the conversation around climate action and its importance will persist.
