The uncertainty shrouding President Trump’s EPA approach to negating the climate regulation cornerstone, the endangerment finding, seems to have been addressed by a recent move. Experts speculate that the EPA’s goal of resisting global will might have been evident in its deregulation activities announced a month ago.
Strangely, rather than tackling the surging pile of evidence suggesting global warming is due to greenhouse gases, it appears the strategy lies elsewhere. The individuals led by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, appointed by the president to tackle the finding, may choose to scrutinize the pollution’s global impact by a sector or the country.
By changing the framework of how air pollution is seen to affect the public, they may find a way to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPA seems to believe that with a new definition, they can sidestep the acknowledgment of environmental damage shown by hard facts.
The removal of the endangerment finding could allow Trump’s administration to extract U.S. climate laws away from their roots. This might help the administration bypass years of effort necessary to finalize replacement rules, which experts believe would be diluted in comparison.
It might also create hurdles for future leaders looking to reestablish controls over sectors contributing to global warming. The factual findings that were dismissed would need to be reaffirmed before they could reintroduce regulations.
Experts hint that the administration may instead target the economic consequences of regulations on energy and other American essentials, rather than addressing the scientific reality of atmospheric change. This approach could avoid the onerous task of gathering a team of dissenting scientists to counter the well-established link between human activity and global warming.
It seems unlikely that an immediate execution of the endangerment finding via an executive order will take place, as was the case with the directive that effectively eliminated water-saving requirements for showerheads earlier this month. However, the EPA may still potentially expedite the revocation of the finding.
The 2009 finding, which is the groundwork for the Clean Air Act’s regulation of greenhouse gases, comes with two premises: that six greenhouse gases pose a potential threat to public health now and in the future, and that new vehicles emit these hazards, endangering public welfare — this latter claim has subsequently been extended to power plants, oil, gas, and other sectors releasing these pollutants.
The 2007 Supreme Court decision gave EPA the authority to regulate these warming gases via the Clean Air Act, conditional on an officially endorsed finding stating that the resulting warming is detrimental to public welfare. This assertion formed the basis of the 2009 endangerment finding.
A controversial aspect of the Obama EPA decision was their ‘novel and flawed’ approach to assessing these gases as a group rather than individually when establishing their risk to human health, as cited in a March press release. The document also questioned if separate findings were needed for each greenhouse gas category.
Speculations are rife that the EPA might argue that each U.S. economic sector should have their own endangerment findings to measure their contributions to global climate change. If the EPA were to put forth that their emissions are insignificant to pose a threat, it could potentially threaten any justification for future regulations.
The EPA’s recent press release hinted that with the evolution of U.S. efforts towards climate change adaptation and mitigation over time, a review of the endangerment finding is due. This perhaps indicates their belief that the nation’s efforts have made it less vulnerable to climate-related changes.
Viewed objectively, the reversals and reshuffles of the Trump Administration’s EPA are rife with inconsistencies and vague explanations. While the abandonment of the endangerment finding could undermine future climate change regulation, it is troubling that arguments are being erected on shaky and unfounded grounds.
While their focus may not be on denying the impact of human emissions on global warming, the direction seems to be pointed towards pointing out the economic burdens of regulatory actions. This ‘head in the sand’ approach could thwart any real progress made in environmental regulation.
Rather than take the fight directly to the formidable body of evidence indicating our global climate crisis, it appears that the administration, by potentially redefining the interpretation of air pollution, is conducting a sideways assault on the issue. If this strategy holds, it could have significant implications for future administrations and the path of U.S. environmental regulation.
The overall impact of these maneuvers on future American policy and the global climate crisis is indeed alarming. It inspires great concern as to whether essential efforts to combat the climate crisis will stand their ground in the increasingly polarized political landscape of the future.