Regulation of climate emissions has just become more challenging. Donald Trump, the US president announced Thursday that his own Environmental Protection Agency had repealed their 2009 finding of danger to human health from greenhouse gas emissions.
This so-called “endangerment” finding of the EPA, based on science and a 2007 Supreme Court decision, provided legal support for federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Power Plan of the Obama Administration, which regulates emissions from power stations, was based on this finding. Trump tried to undermine it in his first term but the Biden Administration introduced a revised version.
The federal government does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases directly without the endangerment ruling and new legislation passed by the two houses of Congress. Science hasn’t altered, but it is no longer required to be acted upon.
Imagine the United States like a large pot of greenhouse gases with a lid.
The Trump administration is removing the lids one-by-one, increasing emissions through increased fossil fuel production, extraction and consumption. The biggest cap on emissions was held by this legal ruling, and Trump removed it. The global impact will be structural.
Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), joins US president Donald Trump in announcing the elimination of the legal foundation for climate regulations. Will Oliver/EPA pool
How was the Endangerment Finding developed and what is it?
Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970 when environmentalists were at their most powerful. The Clean Air Act empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to label something as a pollutant if they believed it was threatening public health.
It was initially used to control pollutants like smog and coal ash, which are byproducts from industry.
During George W. Bush’s presidency, the EPA ruled that greenhouse gasses were pollutants within the Clean Air Act.
In 2007, fossil fuel companies challenged this ruling in Massachusetts v EPA. However, the court ruled (5 judges to 4) that carbon dioxide as well as other greenhouse gases are “air pollutants”, which endanger human health and welfare. The court ordered the EPA assess the impact of greenhouse gases on human welfare, allowing them to be regulated.
The Bush administration didn’t push for the EPA implementation.
What was done with the climate change action based on endangerment findings?
Barack Obama, who promised during his campaign to take action on climate change, was met with a hostile Senate after he became president.
He failed in his efforts to pass an emissions trading bill.
The endangerment ruling allowed him to exercise his executive authority to order the EPA regulate emissions. In the first year of his term, the EPA released new regulations on vehicle emissions for light trucks and cars, as well as some power plants, refineries and other facilities.
Obama expanded these regulations in his second term to include all power plants. The US took its first major steps in reducing emissions with these moves. Obama was able to increase his diplomatic credibility during the 2015 negotiations of the Paris Agreement. It helped to establish diplomatic trust with China in the area of clean energy.
In the last days of negotiations, their lead negotiators collaborated to bring the Paris Agreement into effect.
Why did Trump reverse it?
Trump made the announcement on February 12 that the EPA was rescinding the legal conclusion it had relied upon for almost 20 years. This is his biggest blow against efforts to decarbonise US economics. The legal ruling, he claims, hurts Americans. Lee Zeldin (appointed by Trump) is the EPA director. He called this rule “the holy grail” of climate change.
Trump said to the media Thursday that “this determination was based on no fact whatsoever”.
It was not based on law. Over the centuries, fossil fuels saved millions of life and lifted billions out of poverty around the globe.”
Climate change impacts will increase if federal government does not take action. When it comes to achieving the Paris Agreement’s goals and principles, the US is “indispensable”. China may have higher annual emissions than the US, but the US has been the largest emitter in history, making it responsible for global warming.
Trump’s administration still views climate change as an urban legend. Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The US has actively fanned the global warming flame.
Zedlin’s arguments are similar to those of his original critics of the Endangerment Finding: that legislation should have only applied to local pollutants like smog and not to greenhouse gases. And that science was unclear.
These arguments are not valid, as there is undisputed evidence that increased concentrations of green house gases harm the health and welfare of humans. It is the EPA’s duty to control harmful pollutants directly at their source.
What’s next?
The move is likely to trigger numerous court cases that will take time to resolve. Zedlin will be up against a host of plaintiffs, which includes environmental groups and non-profits.
Trump’s administration is likely to ignore them and continue with the slogan “drill baby drill”.
It will be disastrous if the suits fail or Trump ignores these. No federal law will regulate emissions directly in the US. A new Democrat President committed to climate change will also not be able to use this lever for regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
They will instead have to pass new climate legislation in a highly polarised Congress.
There are still ways to move forward. If Trump leaves office at the end of his second term, which is a very big “if”, it’s possible that a Democratic majority in Congress could pass new climate legislation. Climate action continues to increase at both the city and state level across many US states.
