President Donald Trump is set this week to overturn a landmark scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health by driving climate change—a cornerstone of US regulations to limit planet-warming pollution.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the move last summer, in what the administration described as a major boost to the fossil fuel industry.
“On Thursday, President Trump will be joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to formalise the rescission of the 2009 Obama-era endangerment finding,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday.
“This will be the largest deregulatory action in American history, and it will save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulation,” she added.
The endangerment finding, introduced under President Barack Obama, concluded that six greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide and methane — pose a risk to public health and welfare by contributing to climate change.
The determination followed the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act and required the EPA to assess whether they endanger public health.
While initially applied to vehicle emissions standards, the finding has since underpinned a broader range of regulations. Repealing it would immediately revoke federal greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles and place other climate regulations, including limits on power plant carbon dioxide and methane from oil and gas operations, at legal risk.
“This action is unlawful, ignores basic science, and denies reality,” said Democratic governors Gavin Newsom of California and Tony Evers of Wisconsin in a joint statement. “We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health—and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution.”
Study authored by climate sceptics
The administration’s draft proposal, which received more than 500,000 public comments, argues that greenhouse gases should not be considered pollutants in the traditional sense because their effects are indirect and global, rather than local.
It contends that regulating emissions within the US cannot meaningfully resolve a worldwide problem and cites a study commissioned by an Energy Department working group composed of climate sceptics, challenging the scientific consensus.
The report drew widespread criticism for misattribution and misrepresentation of the studies it referenced. Environmental groups subsequently sued the Energy Department, claiming the panel was convened behind closed doors in violation of federal rules. The group was later disbanded by Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
Legal challenges and disputed figures
The Trump administration claims repealing the endangerment finding would reduce new car costs, which have risen since the pandemic, though critics argue these calculations ignore fuel savings.
Dan Becker of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign said the move “stokes oil demand at home by pushing for more gas guzzlers” while benefitting China’s electric vehicle manufacturers, which would face reduced competition in the US.
While the administration estimates that existing rules imposed more than $1 trillion in cumulative costs, critics argue it fails to account for the benefits of climate protection, public health and reduced fuel use.
“The EPA’s slapdash legal arguments should be laughed out of court,” said Meredith Hankins, federal climate legal director at the Natural Resources Defence Council, promising a swift judicial challenge.
