While many Americans are struggling under extreme heat, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making significant changes to climate regulations. This week, the agency announced plans to roll back its 2009 “endangerment finding,” which determined that climate pollution poses risks to public health and the environment.
This finding has been crucial for controlling emissions from cars and factories. According to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, this rollback represents the most extensive deregulation effort seen in recent times. He boldly declared, “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.”
Interestingly, this move wasn’t taken during President Trump’s first term; the current administration seems empowered by recent Supreme Court rulings. These decisions may allow opponents of climate regulations to challenge existing protections more effectively.
Critics like former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy say this change endangers public health. “Instead of fulfilling their responsibility, this EPA is compromising our safety and increasing energy costs,” she stated.
The endangerment finding emerged from a 2007 Supreme Court case, where the Court ruled that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases. Back then, the consensus was that these gases significantly impact our climate. Since then, scientific evidence about climate change has only strengthened. University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann notes, “It’s hard to deny the dangers of fossil fuel burning, especially with so much visible evidence.”
In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act reaffirmed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, emphasizing Congress’s recognition of climate threats. However, now, the EPA plans to reinterpret the Clean Air Act, claiming it only allows action on direct health impacts, sidelining indirect effects of climate pollution.
Legal experts are skeptical of this reasoning. Professor Gred Dotson from the University of Oregon argues there’s no basis for limiting the EPA’s reach this way. “Regulating air quality means protecting public health broadly, not just from local pollution,” he explained.
The Trump administration is also questioning the validity of climate science, leaning on a controversial report by fringe scientists, which has yet to receive peer review. Critics point out that this selective use of data misrepresents established scientific consensus on climate change, a point emphasized by climate scientist Andrew Dessler.
As the EPA’s proposed rollback seeks public feedback until September 15, the outcome is uncertain. If it moves forward, lawsuits are likely, which may end up in the Supreme Court. The justices could reaffirm the EPA’s authority, offer a narrow ruling, or, alternatively, restrict the agency’s ability to regulate climate pollution altogether. This could leave the responsibility for climate policy largely to Congress.
Amid ongoing debates about climate action, the need for clear, substantial regulations remains essential. With drastic weather changes becoming more frequent, the implications of these regulatory shifts are critical for public health and safety.
For more information on current climate policies, check out the [Environmental Protection Agency](https://www.epa.gov/). Stay engaged as this situation develops, as public feedback and legal interpretations will shape America’s climate future.
Source link
Climate Central,Dana Nuccitelli,federal,government,United States
