The Trump administration’s attempt to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding could spell trouble for businesses. This finding, established in 2009, declared that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide pose a threat to public health and the environment. For many companies, this ruling has acted as a shield against lawsuits while also setting a clear framework for pollution regulations.
Lisa Jacobson, who leads the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, emphasizes the importance of federal oversight. She believes that having regulations helps businesses plan and invest wisely. “We can produce energy affordably and manage pollution at the same time,” Jacobson notes.
However, not everyone agrees with the administration’s direction. Environmental lawyer Jeff Holmstead points out that no major industry groups have pushed for this reversal; in fact, many are concerned about the potential fallout. The American Petroleum Institute, representing oil and gas firms, supports federal regulation of emissions to avoid chaos in the market.
The EPA argues that it does not have congressional authority to regulate climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. Administrator Lee Zeldin has openly questioned the scientific consensus on climate change. Some experts, like climate scientist Zeke Hausfather, criticize this stance. He claims that the administration selectively uses data to downplay climate change risks.
Meanwhile, communities across the U.S. are witnessing the impacts of rising temperatures, from more intense storms to increased flooding. Lawsuits against fossil fuel companies are on the rise, often citing misleading information about climate dangers. In some cases, existing EPA regulations provide a defense against these lawsuits. For instance, a judge dismissed a case from Charleston against energy companies, citing that emissions fall under federal jurisdiction.
Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School, warns that eliminating the EPA’s authority might expose businesses to more lawsuits. With environmental litigation rising, companies could face increased legal challenges if they lose their current defenses.
Holmstead believes the Supreme Court might lean towards limiting the EPA’s power. Although it typically hesitates to reverse previous rulings, the court’s current conservative majority might agree that Congress did not grant the EPA the authority to regulate these emissions.
This debate reflects a broader rift within the Republican Party. While some conservatives wish to deny the reality of climate change, others recognize that federal oversight helps create a stable framework for business. Jim Murphy, from the National Wildlife Federation, suggests that many within the industry accept the need for regulation and acknowledge climate change as a pressing issue.
As the EPA moves forward with its plan despite corporate concerns, the situation underscores shifting political dynamics and raises questions about the future of environmental regulations in America.
For more details on EPA’s endangerment finding, check out the official EPA document here.
The stakes are high, not just for the environment but also for businesses navigating the regulatory landscape.
