Trump's Environmental Protection Agency proposes scrapping regulations on greenhouse gas emissions
The Trump administration has announced a plan to overturn a key 2009 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding that underpins much of the federal government's actions to rein in climate change. The proposal, if finalized, could roll back major climate regulations and has been met with criticism for its legal and scientific flaws.
The 2009 endangerment finding serves as the basis for rules regulating climate pollution from coal and gas-fired power plants, car and truck exhaust, and methane from the oil and gas industry. The finding was a response to the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act subject to regulation.
However, the Trump EPA argues that the statutory term "air pollution" should only include pollutants causing localized or regional harm, excluding GHGs causing global effects. This interpretation conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA and has been widely criticized as legally flawed.
The administration's proposal also cites the Supreme Court’s 2022 West Virginia v. EPA decision to claim that a "major questions" doctrine restricts the EPA’s regulatory authority over GHGs. However, this is disputed because West Virginia v. EPA did not overrule Massachusetts v. EPA and implicitly recognized EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Moreover, the proposal relies on scientific claims disputed as fringe and cost analyses that argue regulation harms economic interests, seeking to justify revocation on economic grounds contrary to the original health and welfare focus of the finding.
If finalized, this would eliminate EPA’s legal foundation under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from vehicles and other sources. The administration's decision has been criticized as putting fealty to Big Oil over sound science and people's health.
The NRDC's lawyers and scientists are prepared to fight the EPA's illegal and cynical approach in court if it is finalized. The decision, if upheld, could speed President Trump's efforts to end former President Biden's ambitious climate agenda and make it more difficult for future administrations to limit human-caused greenhouse gas pollution.
In March, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin stated in an agency press release that the proposal aims to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers. However, critics argue that the proposal would create more uncertainty and confusion, potentially leading to increased climate pollution.
The Trump administration's legal justification for the proposal has been widely criticized as legally flawed and scientifically unsound. The administration's decision to overturn the 2009 endangerment finding is a contentious issue that is likely to continue to be debated in the coming months.
[1] Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administration-proposes-to-overturn-epa-climate-change-finding/ [4] Source: https://www.nrdc.org/media/2023/230324
In a separate development, President Trump has suggested that oil executives should raise $1 billion for his presidential bid because he would roll back environmental rules in 2024. This statement has raised concerns about the potential influence of the fossil fuel industry on future environmental policies.
In a positive note, Congress included language in the climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act that labels greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, making abandoning the endangerment finding more difficult. This move could provide a strong legal foundation for future administrations to take action against climate change.
Dan Becker of the Center for Biological Diversity stated that Trump's actions on the endangerment finding put fealty to Big Oil over sound science and people's health. The Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit organisation dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
The Trump EPA is making a legal argument that the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision did not require the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, this argument contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which clearly stated that GHGs are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
The administration's decision, if upheld, could make it more difficult for future administrations to limit human-caused greenhouse gas pollution. This could have serious consequences for the global efforts to combat climate change and protect the environment.
The EPA plans to eliminate rules to reduce climate pollution from cars and trucks, as transportation is the largest source of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. This move could lead to increased emissions from the transportation sector and contribute to climate change.
The administration's proposal aims to undo the government's "endangerment finding," a determination that pollutants from developing and burning fossil fuels can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The endangerment finding is a crucial step in the process of regulating climate pollution and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
President Trump has made abandoning the 2009 endangerment finding a priority. The endangerment finding is a key part of the federal government's efforts to address climate change and regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration's proposal to overturn the finding has been met with widespread criticism and concern.
The EPA argues it doesn't have the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. However, this argument contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed that GHGs are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act subject to regulation. The EPA's argument also raises questions about its commitment to addressing climate change and protecting public health.
- The Trump administration's proposal to overturn the 2009 EPA's endangerment finding, which serves as the basis for rules regulating climate pollution, has been met with criticism for its legal and scientific flaws.
- The administration's legal justification for the proposal has been widely criticized as legally flawed and scientifically unsound, contradicting the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.
- If finalized, this move could make it more difficult for future administrations to limit human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, potentially having serious consequences for global efforts to combat climate change and protect the environment.
- In a separate development, the administration has suggested that oil executives should contribute to President Trump's presidential bid as a reward for rolling back environmental regulations.
- In a positive note, Congress has included language in the climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act that reinforces the classification of greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
- The Trump EPA's argument that it doesn't have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act raises questions about its commitment to addressing climate change and protecting public health.
