trump administration formally rescinds obama-era climate finding on greenhouse gases
The Trump administration has taken a significant step in its efforts to roll back climate regulations, formally rescinding a 2009 Obama-era finding that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endanger public health. The move, announced by President Donald Trump in the Roosevelt Room, will have a domino effect, toppling years of federal regulations targeting emissions produced by vehicles, power plants, and oil facilities.
According to EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, the action is the "largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States" and will save Americans more than $1 trillion. Trump emphasized the point, stating that the action will eliminate over $1.3 trillion of regulatory cost and help bring car prices down dramatically. The president also claimed that the action will allow vehicle manufacturers to build what Americans want, rather than what politicians and bureaucrats in Washington demand.
The action makes good on Trump's 2024 campaign promise to achieve the "most aggressive regulatory reduction" in the nation's history and represents the president's single greatest achievement to date in his pursuit to unwind previous administrations' climate policies. However, the move is expected to spark a wave of lawsuits from Democrat-led states and environmental activist groups, who argue that preserving the endangerment finding and regulating greenhouse gases is essential for combating climate change.
California Governor Gavin Newsom (D., Calif.) has already vowed to challenge the move, writing to Zeldin in September that "California will not stand by" and that the administration has a choice to "honor the law, follow the credible and established science, and fulfill your duty to the American people." Every Senate Democrat has also signed a separate letter to Zeldin, warning that rescinding the finding would be a "dereliction of duty" and take "breathtaking hubris."
The expected litigation will likely work its way up to the Supreme Court, with former DOJ counsel Michael Buschbacher stating that "it's a long road still to complete victory, and the other side will fight this with everything they've got." However, Buschbacher believes that "the Trump administration is right on the law and the policy" and that "the American public is glad to see the end of these incredibly costly and illegal EV mandates."
The issue dates back to the 1970s, when Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which requires the EPA to regulate any air pollutant emitted by mobile sources, like cars, and stationary sources, like power plants, that the agency determines to cause or contribute to pollution endangering public health or welfare. For decades, the EPA did not interpret that provision to include greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane.
A coalition of states led by Massachusetts eventually sued the EPA after the agency formally determined in 2003 that the Clean Air Act did not authorize it to consider greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the states and directed the EPA to consider whether greenhouse gas emissions do, in fact, endanger public health, leading to the 2009 endangerment finding.
The Trump administration's move to rescind the finding is a significant blow to efforts to combat climate change, with the Sierra Club's acting executive director, Loren Blackford, stating that "removing EPA's authority to limit deadly greenhouse gas emissions is as shortsighted as it is stupid." The move is also expected to have significant implications for the energy industry, with the administration's actions likely to benefit fossil fuel companies at the expense of renewable energy providers.
As the litigation makes its way through the courts, it is likely that the issue will become a major point of contention in the 2024 presidential election. The move is already being seen as a significant victory for Trump's base, with many Republicans praising the administration's efforts to roll back climate regulations. However, Democrats and environmental groups are likely to continue to fight the move, arguing that it will have devastating consequences for the environment and public health.