WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 30: A bronze sign marks an entrance to the US Environmental Protection … More
Getty Images
In a significant development today, the Environmental Protection Agency has initiated steps to dismantle the legal framework for addressing climate change. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency intends to move forward with a proposal to revoke the “endangerment finding,” a rule established in 2009 that allows for the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
During the Trump administration, the EPA had been eyeing the endangerment finding as early as March, when the agency unveiled “31 historic actions in the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history.” These actions included a call for “reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations and actions that rely on that Finding.”
The endangerment finding consists of two key components, both focusing on “public health and welfare.” The first part states that the rising levels of six greenhouse gases pose a threat to human well-being, while the second part specifically implicates new motor vehicles and their engines in contributing to harmful pollution through these emissions.
In an interview on Fox News, Administrator Zeldin offered additional insight into the EPA’s proposal to dismantle the endangerment finding, stating, “We’re not going to impose severe economic hardship on Americans who can least afford it.”
He also commented on the opposition to the proposal, noting, “There will be a lot of exaggerated claims, scare tactics, and extreme rhetoric coming from climate extremists.”
It is evident that the EPA’s decision to reverse the endangerment finding aligns with President Trump’s consistent portrayal of climate action as a hindrance to policy and an obstacle to economic progress. The administration has consistently framed climate action as incompatible with economic growth, portraying advocates of climate initiatives as unconcerned about economic well-being.
On his first day in office, President Trump reaffirmed this narrative by withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and issuing an executive order that emphasized the economic aspect, stating, “It is the policy of my Administration to prioritize the interests of the United States and the American people in any international agreements that could harm or hinder the American economy.”
However, it is crucial to recognize that viewing climate action as in opposition to economic development is counterproductive on various levels.
The rapid growth of renewable energy capacity underscores the importance of seizing the opportunity to lead in this global shift, as neglecting to do so would be detrimental to economic prospects. While the Trump administration has attempted to limit commitments to clean energy in favor of promoting fossil fuels, other countries are ramping up investments in renewable energy research and technologies that are poised to shape the future.
Furthermore, the belief that reducing greenhouse gas emissions undermines economic prosperity ignores the overwhelming evidence that the climate crisis poses a significant threat to public health, a concern that the endangerment finding sought to address.
For instance, this summer alone, millions of Americans have endured extreme heat, with climate change exacerbating the intensity, frequency, and duration of heatwaves. Various studies have attempted to quantify the economic impact of heat-related disruptions, with estimates ranging from $100 billion to 2.5 billion hours of labor.
Children are particularly susceptible to high temperatures and experience learning setbacks when schools lack adequate cooling measures. Elementary and middle school students in several states have historically had their school days shortened due to unsafe temperatures.
While the Biden administration had developed a comprehensive National Heat Strategy to address these widespread impacts, it is evident that a robust response of similar scale is currently lacking. This not only means that we are failing to implement measures to mitigate the consequences of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions but also undermining preventive efforts by targeting the endangerment finding.
This scenario illustrates just one aspect of the interconnectedness of the climate crisis and public health and underscores the importance of regulating greenhouse gas emissions to break this cycle. This does not even begin to address the impact of wildfires, floods, tropical cyclones, allergy seasons, food insecurity, and the mental health effects associated with a planet affected by climate change.
Based on projections from the World Health Organization, we can expect 250,000 additional annual deaths from 2030 to 2050, along with $2-4 billion in annual healthcare costs within the next five years. In the past year alone, the U.S. incurred losses exceeding $182 billion from weather and climate-related disasters. The devastation caused by Hurricane Helene, which left people without clean water for weeks, serves as a stark reminder of the impact of such events.
The EPA’s proposal to reverse course on a critical tool for combating climate change will have far-reaching implications. “The public health and welfare of current and future generations,” as articulated in the text of the endangerment finding, will undoubtedly be at the forefront of these consequences.
