Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“The Trump administration said [last] Tuesday it will rescind the long-standing finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health, removing the legal foundation for all U.S. greenhouse gas regulations. If finalized, the repeal would end current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from vehicle tailpipes, power plants, smokestacks and other sources, and hamper future U.S. efforts to combat global warming…
“The endangerment finding's roots date back to 2009, when the EPA under former Democratic President Barack Obama issued a finding that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to pollution and endanger public health and welfare. That assessment followed a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in its landmark Massachusetts v. EPA case that said the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and required the agency to make a scientific finding on whether those emissions endanger public health.” Reuters
The left criticizes the rescission, arguing that it will harm both US consumers and the environment.
“In its legal claims, EPA argued that the definition of ‘air pollutant’ for the purposes of the Clean Air Act applies only to ‘local and regional’ pollution, not to global pollution like greenhouse gas emissions. The ‘local and regional’ limitation does not appear anywhere in the text of the statute. Quite to the contrary, the definition of ‘welfare’ in the Clean Air Act includes ‘effects on… weather… and climate.’…
“EPA fares no better on economics than it did on law and science. In its analysis, EPA cast aside the two major classes of benefits for the vehicle rules: greenhouse gas emissions reductions and savings in gasoline costs. The agency ignored the benefits of greenhouse gas reductions altogether, pretending they don’t exist…
“On fuel savings, EPA dismissed, with little explanation, the ‘energy efficiency paradox,’ which establishes that, for myopia and other reasons, consumers undervalue the energy savings that will accrue to them over time from purchasing more efficient cars or appliances. EPA’s analysis merely shows—tautologically—that if one ignores the benefits of regulation, regulation has only costs. In its cynical attempt to avoid addressing climate change, EPA is wrong on law, science, and economics.”
Richard L. Revesz, Slate
“If enacted, [the proposal] will leave drivers and automakers free to pollute as much as they like, Zeldin crowed, and will thereby reinstate ‘consumer choice’ and give Americans ‘the ability to purchase a safe and affordable car for their family while decreasing the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver.’…
“[But] The EPA’s own website still states that Biden-era regulations are on track to nearly double the fuel efficiency of light-duty cars and trucks, meaning that existing regulations would help drivers pay less to travel farther. These same regulations were projected to save the average driver in the U.S. some $6,000 in fuel and maintenance costs over the life of a new vehicle.”
Kate Aronoff, New Republic
“The economic damage of US companies’ carbon emissions alone will amount to a blistering $87 trillion through 2050, according to a recent estimate… An atmosphere heated up by greenhouse gases is a more chaotic one. That means hurricanes and other storms become stronger faster, leading to greater loss of life and health and damage to property and infrastructure…
“The world already suffered $28 trillion in climate damage between 1991 and 2020… During much of that time, the planet hadn’t yet warmed to 1 degree Celsius above preindustrial averages. Now we’re at 1.3C of warming and on a path to hit 2C… the slower we are to take action, and the more Zeldin and President Donald Trump undo climate progress, the higher the costs will grow and the harder the damage will be to reverse.”
Mark Gongloff, Bloomberg
The right supports the rescission, arguing that the Clean Air Act was meant to address air pollution, not climate change.
The right supports the rescission, arguing that the Clean Air Act was meant to address air pollution, not climate change.
“Back in 2009, Environmental Protection Agency functionaries listed carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as posing a public-health threat — not for any actual toxicity, but because of their role in speeding global warming. That in turn allowed for unprecedented EPA regulation of factories, power plants and auto emissions…
“None of it ever made sense: Congress created the EPA in 1970 to fight actual poisons in our water and air, not to manage complex bank-shot contingencies…
“Yes, cutting carbon emissions is an important long-term goal — but trying to make them zero immediately is nuts, especially when China is still building new coal plants at a record pace. The nation (and the world!) is far better served by Trump’s drive to boost US energy production and ensure a plentiful and reliable supply of cheaper electricity to meet the growing demands of manufacturers and AI companies.”
Editorial Board, New York Post
“CO2 is different from the pollutants that Congress expressly authorized EPA to regulate. Those pollutants ‘are subject to regulatory control because they cause local problems depending on concentrations that include nuisances (odor, visibility), damage to plants, and, at high enough exposure levels, toxicological effects in humans…
“In contrast, CO2 is odorless, does not affect visibility and has no toxicological effects at ambient levels.’ In other words, higher levels of CO2 in the air from fossil fuels won’t make you sick. This is a distinction Democrats elide when they claim that increases in CO2 will cause dirtier air…
“This isn't to say that the climate isn’t warming or that humans don’t affect the climate. But the impact of CO2 on public welfare depends on its climate effects, which are uncertain and mediated by sundry other variables like cloud cover. With regulatory humility, EPA is acknowledging this and proposing to repeal the 2009 finding.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“The Supreme Court, in a dubious 5–4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), ruled that Congress in 1970 meant to classify carbon dioxide as an ‘air pollutant’ notwithstanding the fact that it is naturally present in the atmosphere and is exhaled by humans and animals…
“Only three justices remain from the Court that decided Massachusetts v. EPA, and all three (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts) were then in dissent. The Court may be more hesitant today to reverse that decision, given the weight of precedent in cases of statutory interpretation, but it should do so. In the interim, we applaud Zeldin and the EPA for the boldness to liberate American industry to compete in world markets.”
The Editors, National Review
