Trump Administration's Plan to Reverse Endangerment Finding Could Derail Climate Efforts

Strategic Insights -

The Trump administration's plan to reverse the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare has sparked controversy. Supporters argue it's essential for addressing climate change, while critics call it costly overreach that stifles energy production and jobs. A Northeastern University climate law expert warns that undoing this endangerment finding could topple critical climate efforts.

According to Sharmila Murthy, professor of law and public policy, the endangerment finding is the legal foundation for U.S. climate regulations, including vehicle emissions standards and limits on coal-fueled power plants. Murthy notes that if the administration finalizes the rescission, the decision will "almost certainly" be challenged in court, potentially making its way to a Supreme Court that could overturn Massachusetts v. EPA.

The EPA's 2009 finding was based on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that the agency is required to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Critics argue that this finding has led to regulations that impose substantial costs and make the U.S. less competitive in global energy markets. The administration's plan to reconsider the finding has sparked concerns that it would undermine the country's climate efforts.

Key Takeaways:

  • The EPA's 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare has been the legal foundation for U.S. climate regulations since 2009.
  • Undoing this endangerment finding could topple critical climate efforts, including vehicle emissions standards and limits on coal-fueled power plants.
  • The Trump administration's plan to reverse the finding will likely be challenged in court, potentially making its way to a Supreme Court that could overturn Massachusetts v. EPA.
  • The EPA's 2009 finding was based on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that the agency is required to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
  • Sharmila Murthy, professor of law and public policy, warns that if the administration finalizes the rescission, it will "almost certainly" be challenged in court.
  • The EPA's Administrator Lee Zeldin has claimed that the 2009 analysis was "flawed" and "unorthodox," and has announced plans to "rescind" the finding.

Statistics:

  • 15 years: The length of time since the EPA's 2009 finding was made.
  • 2007: The year the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA is required to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
  • 30 days: The time period given to the EPA to evaluate the endangerment finding under the Trump administration's executive order.
  • 5 scientists: The number of scientists who contributed to a Department of Energy-commissioned report that has been cited by the EPA in support of reversing the endangerment finding.

Sources:

  • Northeastern University: For more than 15 years, the Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare has been the legal foundation for U.S. climate regulations.
  • The Supreme Court: Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007.
  • The EPA: Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.
  • The Department of Energy: A report commissioned by the Department of Energy that has been cited by the EPA in support of reversing the endangerment finding.
  • EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin: "We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more."