WashingtonPresident Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday proposed withdrawing a scientific finding that has long been the core underpinning for U.S. action to control greenhouse gas emissions and fight .
A 2009 declaration that found carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases constitute a threat to public health and welfare would be revoked by the new rule. Under the Clean Air Act, a number of climate laws pertaining to power plants, automobiles, and other sources of pollution that warm the globe are legally supported by the endangerment finding.
Suggested Videos
“The largest deregulatory action in American history will be the repeal of the finding,” the statement stated on Tuesday.
On the conservative podcast, Zeldin stated, “There are people who are willing to bankrupt the country in the name of climate change.” “After creating this endangerment finding, they were able to impose numerous laws on automobiles, aircraft, and stationary sources, thereby eradicating large sectors of our economy in many situations. And it was very expensive for Americans.
Before the EPA proposal is approved, probably next year, it must pass a rigorous review process that includes public participation. The rule change is likely to be challenged in court by environmental groups.
As part of what he called “the greatest day of deregulation in American history,” Zeldin called for a revision of the endangerment finding in March. Under Zeldin’s plan, a number of laws pertaining to clean air, clean water, and climate change would be abolished or rolled back.
At an event in Indiana on Tuesday to announce the proposed rule change, Zeldin stated, “His predecessors at EPA twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year under the Obama and Biden administrations.”
Targeted are tailpipe emission limitations as well.
Trump falsely refers to this regulation as an EV mandate, but the EPA also proposed for lifting restrictions on tailpipe emissions that were intended to incentivize automakers to produce and sell more. The biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the US is the transportation industry.
Zeldin’s conduct, according to environmental groups, is to ignore reality as climate change-exacerbated weather disasters worsen both domestically and internationally.
Christy Goldfuss, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, stated, “The Trump administration is attempting to argue that the emissions turbocharging these disasters are not a threat as Americans reel from deadly floods and heat waves.” It is mind-boggling and puts the safety and well-being of the country at risk.
“The EPA wants to avoid its duty to protect us from climate pollution under Zeldin and Trump, but science and the law say otherwise,” she continued. We will see EPA in court if they continue with this unlawful and deceitful strategy.
Zeldin has also come under fire from three former EPA directors who claim that his March announcement that targeted the endangerment finding and other rules endangered the lives of millions of Americans and betrayed the agency’s twin duty of protecting human health and the environment.
Following the release of Zeldin’s plan, Christine Todd Whitman, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Republican President George W. Bush, stated that if there is ever an endangerment finding, it should be against this administration because of the way they are acting.
Trump ordered the EPA to produce a report on the validity and ongoing applicability of the endangerment finding, which is what the EPA plan is based on. The concept was praised by conservatives and some congressional Republicans who saw it as a means of reversing regulations that restrict greenhouse gasses and cause economic harm.
Democrats, legal experts, and environmental organizations, however, stated that any move to overturn or repeal the endangerment decision would be a difficult undertaking with little prospect of success. The Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants.
Getting a judicial muster could be problematic.
According to Abigail Dillen, president of the environmental law firm Earthjustice, the EPA proposal aims to discredit established science by establishing legal distinctions that are not supported by the law. Even as we experience more catastrophic climate disasters each year, the Trump administration is acting as though the pollution causing climate change is not harming us, she added, failing to take seriously its duty to protect public health.
Should the endangerment finding be overturned, existing restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from companies, power plants, automobiles, and other sources would be eliminated, and future administrations could be discouraged from introducing regulations to address climate change.
The Environmental Defense Fund’s president, Fred Krupp, stated, “The endangerment finding is based on a strong scientific basis that has grown stronger over time. “The findings have supported commonsense solutions that protect our jobs and health, reduce pollution, and give us cleaner air,” he said.
Reversing the endangerment decision, according to climate experts, would jeopardize decades of scientific advancement and harm the reputation of American organizations entrusted with environmental protection. According to Scott Saleska, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, the 12 hottest years on record have all happened since 2009, and heat-related fatalities are increasing along with the frequency and intensity of wildfires.
“Removing the endangerment finding now would be like a driver putting his foot on the accelerator instead of the brake as he speeds toward a cliff,” Saleska said.
A more explosive metaphor was employed by Jim Walsh, policy director of Food & Water Watch, an environmental organization. He compared Lee Zeldin’s suggestion that the EPA shouldn’t deal with greenhouse gas emissions to a fire chief saying that firefighters shouldn’t fight fires. It is both wicked and ridiculous.
___
Visit AP to learn more about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
