How Trump’s EPA is Undermining Its Own Climate Change Initiatives

In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that rising greenhouse gases were a threat to public health. This finding allowed the EPA to set rules for emissions from cars, power plants, and more. Although these regulations face challenges, the authority behind them has remained strong.

Fast forward to President Trump’s administration, where the EPA announced plans to repeal this finding. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin claimed that the regulations, not carbon dioxide, were the real threat to livelihoods, arguing they raise prices and limit choices. If this repeal goes through, experts warn it could strip the government of a key tool against climate change.

Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law, stated that removing this finding would dramatically weaken the federal government’s ability to address climate issues. Meanwhile, Republicans have already rolled back parts of President Biden’s climate laws aimed at meeting U.S. goals under the Paris Agreement. By rescinding the endangerment finding, they could effectively eliminate another critical tool for climate regulation.

Patrick Parenteau, an expert in climate policy, said that a strong national climate policy wouldn’t be possible if the repeal succeeds. However, there will likely be years of legal battles ahead. The EPA’s decision will face scrutiny in court, with some experts believing the case might reach the Supreme Court, which had previously upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 gave the EPA the power to regulate pollutants endangering public health. When the Obama administration added carbon dioxide to this list in 2009, it was seen as a necessary step. The current administration’s proposal to strike it down will open a 45-day period for public comments, followed by a potential legal showdown.

If the finding is revoked, it not only alters federal climate policy but could also expose fossil fuel companies to more lawsuits. Previously, these companies used a Supreme Court ruling from 2011 as a defense against state-level climate lawsuits. If the EPA stops regulating greenhouse gases, those companies might lose this legal shield. Jeff Holmstead, a partner at an energy law firm, expressed concerns that reversing the finding could lead to a rise in lawsuits against energy companies.

Moreover, without federal regulations, states could create their own climate laws, leading to inconsistent policies across the country. For instance, California could enforce stricter emissions standards, sparking more conflicts with federal regulations.

While a future administration could potentially reinstate the endangerment finding, significant progress on climate change would take time. Experts like Zealan Hoover highlight that meaningful regulatory changes typically require years, making immediate climate action difficult.

In summary, the ongoing tussle over the EPA’s endangerment finding is pivotal. It reflects broader political and legal battles over climate policy that will shape the country’s environmental landscape for years to come. For further information on EPA policies, you can visit the EPA’s official site.

Source link