On February 12, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a significant step that raised eyebrows across the nation. In a decision signed by Administrator Lee Zeldin, the EPA repealed the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which had been crucial in regulating greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane under the Clean Air Act. Without this finding, these gases are no longer seen as threats to public health or the environment.
The EPA claims this repeal could save Americans $1.3 trillion. They argue that loosening emission restrictions for vehicles will make cars more affordable and stimulate the economy. But there’s skepticism about these figures. According to an article in The Guardian by Dharna Noor, the EPA’s own analysis suggests that gas prices could rise by 29 percent by 2050 without federal standards. The overall economic cost might reach $1.5 trillion by 2055, considering increased fuel, maintenance costs, and other related expenses.
Environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, bring up a broader concern: the social and environmental costs of rising prices and health issues stemming from air pollution. They estimate these costs could soar to around $4.7 trillion.
The EPA’s ruling is rooted in a recent Supreme Court decision stating that the agency cannot impose wide-ranging regulations without congressional approval. This decision implies that emissions standards are too burdensome for manufacturers.
Zeldin defended the move, stating the Trump-era EPA is simply following the law to promote consumer choice and back the American Dream. He claims that the 1970 Clean Air Act applies only to immediate, local pollutants, not to global warming gases.
Environmental health experts disagree. Alissa Cordner, a sociology professor at Whitman College, highlighted that air pollution will most likely impact health systems already stretched thin. “Healthcare providers often lack training in environmental health,” she noted, which means they might overlook significant environmental factors affecting health.
The controversy deepens with a recent Department of Energy report, cited multiple times by the EPA, that downplays the link between CO2 emissions and increasing natural disasters. Many scientists, including Ben Santer, have criticized this report for misrepresenting climate research. Santer emphasized the clear evidence linking climate change to more severe wildfires and other natural disasters.
In 2024, the world faced record heat. Wildfires in Washington state burned vast areas, underscoring the urgent need for effective policies. The EPA’s repeal seems to dismiss these realities, favoring short-term economic arguments over long-term health and environmental safety.
The legal landscape is shifting, too. More than 17 organizations have banded together to challenge the EPA’s decision, confident that scientific evidence will prevail in court. However, legal battles can be lengthy, allowing pollution to rise unchecked in the meantime.
Experts warn that the consequences may not be immediate but will accumulate over time. “Emissions don’t recognize borders,” said Andrea Sempértegui Barreiros, a professor at Whitman. The U.S., despite having one of the highest greenhouse gas emissions, has yet to experience the same level of climate crises faced by many countries in the Global South.
Students like Zizia da Conceição Teme from Timor-Leste, which has faced severe flooding and ineffective disaster responses, express the real-life impacts of climate change. “Moving around the city is really difficult,” she explains, showcasing the everyday struggles caused by climate inaction.
Looking ahead, many countries are stepping up their climate commitments, with over 100 nations strengthening policies to reduce emissions. In contrast, the U.S. stands alone in renouncing its commitment to international climate agreements. As global warming projections improve slightly through rigorous emission controls, the rollback of the Endangerment Finding threatens to undo progress made in combating climate change.
In the end, this decision reflects a troubling trend in how environmental issues are politically framed. For the younger generation, the message is chilling: economic interests often overshadow genuine concerns for health and the future of the planet. The ongoing struggle between policy, economics, and environmental science will shape the world that future generations inherit.
Source link
