N※N

Top and Current
Source : (remove) : Mother Jones
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Top and Current
Source : (remove) : Mother Jones
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

"Another Big Lie": Trump's EPA plans to stop regulating greenhouse gases

Trump's Potential Assault on the EPA's Landmark Climate Ruling: A Deep Dive into the Endangerment Finding

In the swirling vortex of American politics, where climate policy often hangs by a thread, a second Donald Trump presidency could spell doom for one of the most foundational pillars of U.S. environmental regulation: the EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gas emissions. This ruling, which declared that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases pose a significant threat to public health and welfare, has been the bedrock for a cascade of federal actions aimed at curbing climate change. But as Trump eyes a return to the White House, conservative strategists and allies are sharpening their knives, plotting ways to dismantle or severely undermine this critical determination. The stakes couldn't be higher, with implications rippling across everything from vehicle emissions standards to power plant regulations, potentially unraveling decades of progress in the fight against global warming.

To understand the gravity of this threat, it's essential to revisit the origins of the Endangerment Finding. The story begins in the early 2000s, amid growing scientific consensus on human-induced climate change. In 2007, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority—and indeed the obligation—under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases if they were found to endanger public health or welfare. This case, brought by a coalition of states and environmental groups, forced the EPA's hand after years of inaction under the George W. Bush administration. The Bush-era EPA had initially resisted, arguing that it lacked the authority or that the science was inconclusive. But the Supreme Court's rebuke was clear: greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants under the law, and the agency could not simply ignore the mounting evidence.

It wasn't until the Obama administration took office that the Endangerment Finding was formalized. In December 2009, after an exhaustive review of thousands of scientific studies, the EPA concluded that six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—endangered both current and future generations. The finding highlighted risks such as rising sea levels, more intense heatwaves, increased wildfires, and threats to agriculture and public health. This wasn't just a symbolic gesture; it triggered a regulatory domino effect. The finding became the legal foundation for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which aimed to slash emissions from coal-fired power plants, as well as stringent fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. It empowered the EPA to address emissions from a wide array of sources, from aviation to oil and gas operations, forming the backbone of America's response to the climate crisis.

Fast-forward to Trump's first term, and the Endangerment Finding faced its first major assault. Trump, who famously dismissed climate change as a "hoax" perpetrated by China, appointed industry-friendly figures like Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler to lead the EPA. They rolled back over 100 environmental rules, including attempts to weaken vehicle emissions standards and repeal the Clean Power Plan. However, directly revoking the Endangerment Finding proved trickier. Pruitt floated the idea of a "red team-blue team" debate to challenge the underlying science, but it fizzled amid backlash from scientists and legal experts. The administration's efforts were often hamstrung by court challenges, with judges repeatedly upholding the finding's scientific integrity. Still, Trump managed to delay or dilute many regulations tied to it, buying time for fossil fuel interests.

Now, with Trump leading in polls for the 2024 election, the playbook for a second term appears even more aggressive. Documents like Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups, outline a roadmap for gutting federal climate protections. Central to this is targeting the Endangerment Finding itself. Proponents argue that the finding overreaches, imposing undue economic burdens on industries without sufficient evidence of harm. They point to dissenting voices in the scientific community—though these are a minority—and claim that the EPA's interpretation of "endangerment" is too broad. Under a Trump 2.0, the EPA could initiate a formal review process to revisit or repeal the finding, potentially citing new "evidence" or reinterpreting the Clean Air Act. This could involve stacking the agency with climate skeptics, slashing research budgets, and prioritizing economic analyses that downplay climate risks.

Legal experts warn that overturning the finding wouldn't be straightforward. The Supreme Court's 2007 decision sets a high bar: any reversal would need to demonstrate that the science has fundamentally changed, which it hasn't—in fact, climate science has only grown more robust, with reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underscoring the urgency. A direct repeal could invite a barrage of lawsuits from states like California and New York, environmental organizations, and even some businesses invested in clean energy. "The Endangerment Finding is like the keystone of the arch," says one environmental law professor. "Remove it, and the whole structure collapses, but trying to yank it out will trigger a legal earthquake."

Beyond the courtroom, the broader implications are staggering. Without the finding, the EPA would lose its primary tool for regulating greenhouse gases, effectively halting new rules on emissions from power plants, vehicles, and industrial sources. This could accelerate U.S. contributions to global warming at a time when the planet is already experiencing record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather events. Domestically, it would exacerbate health issues like respiratory diseases linked to air pollution, disproportionately affecting low-income and minority communities. Internationally, it would undermine America's credibility on the global stage, weakening commitments under the Paris Agreement and emboldening other nations to slack on their own climate pledges.

Trump's allies frame this as a necessary correction to "regulatory overreach." Figures like Myron Ebell, who led Trump's EPA transition team in 2016, have long advocated for dismantling what they call the "climate-industrial complex." They argue that market forces and innovation, rather than government mandates, should drive energy transitions. But critics see this as a thinly veiled giveaway to oil, gas, and coal industries, which donated heavily to Trump's campaigns. The fossil fuel sector stands to gain billions if regulations are loosened, allowing for expanded drilling and reduced compliance costs.

Yet, there's a counter-narrative emerging. Even as Trump rallies his base with promises to "drill, baby, drill," public opinion on climate action remains strong. Polls show that a majority of Americans, including many Republicans, support measures to reduce emissions. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed under Biden, has poured hundreds of billions into clean energy, creating jobs in red states and making reversal politically risky. States and cities are stepping up with their own climate policies, forming a patchwork of protections that could blunt federal rollbacks.

Still, the threat to the Endangerment Finding looms large. If Trump wins, his administration might not need to fully repeal it to render it toothless. They could issue waivers, delay implementations, or reinterpret it in ways that exempt key industries. For instance, narrowing the definition of "endangerment" to focus only on immediate, provable harms could exclude long-term climate risks like sea-level rise. This incremental erosion could achieve much of the same effect without the fanfare of a full repeal.

Environmental advocates are gearing up for battle. Groups like the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council are already mobilizing, preparing legal strategies and public campaigns to defend the finding. "This isn't just about science; it's about survival," says one activist. "The Endangerment Finding acknowledges what we all know: climate change is real, it's here, and it's deadly."

As the 2024 election approaches, the fate of this pivotal ruling hangs in the balance. A Trump victory could usher in an era of deregulation that sets back climate progress by years, if not decades. Conversely, if opponents prevail, it could reinforce the finding's resilience, proving that science and law can withstand political winds. Either way, the Endangerment Finding stands as a testament to the ongoing struggle between environmental protection and economic interests—a struggle that will define America's role in the global fight against climate catastrophe.

In delving deeper, it's worth examining the scientific underpinnings that make the Endangerment Finding so robust. The EPA's 2009 determination drew from a vast body of peer-reviewed research, including data from NASA, NOAA, and international bodies. It detailed how greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to phenomena like ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, and more frequent natural disasters. Updates in subsequent years, such as the 2014 National Climate Assessment, have only strengthened these conclusions, incorporating new evidence from events like Hurricane Sandy and the California wildfires.

Critics of the finding often cherry-pick data or amplify uncertainties, but the overwhelming consensus—over 97% of climate scientists agree on human causation—makes such arguments tenuous. Trump's potential moves would likely rely on alternative "experts" from think tanks funded by industry, echoing tactics used in past debates over tobacco and acid rain.

Economically, the finding has driven innovation. Regulations spurred by it have accelerated the shift to electric vehicles and renewable energy, creating millions of jobs. Tesla's rise, for example, owes much to emissions standards that incentivized zero-emission tech. Undoing this could stifle growth in these sectors while propping up declining fossil fuels.

Politically, the issue exposes rifts within the GOP. While Trump doubles down on denial, figures like some governors in wind-rich states quietly support clean energy subsidies. This internal tension could complicate implementation of anti-climate agendas.

Ultimately, the Endangerment Finding isn't just a policy document; it's a moral statement on our responsibility to future generations. As Trump contemplates his return, the question is whether America will uphold that commitment or retreat into denial. The answer could shape the planet's future. (Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full Mother Jones Article at:
[ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2025/07/trump-epa-greenhouse-emissions-endangerment-ruling/ ]