Trump just killed the EPA’s ability to fight climate change. It may backfire.
:
President Donald Trump’s stance on climate change is centered around the belief that greenhouse gases are not as harmful as they are made out to be. This viewpoint, although contrary to the established scientific consensus on climate change, has far-reaching implications. Trump’s argument is that if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles are not considered dangerous air pollutants, then they should not be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act. This stance undermines essential federal regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions and improving fuel efficiency.
The Trump administration recently took a significant step in advancing this argument by formalizing the repeal of the endangerment finding, a rule established in 2009 that acknowledged the threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions to public health and welfare. This finding serves as the legal basis for many climate regulations, from vehicle emission standards to emissions caps for power plants. By repealing this finding, the administration aims to prevent future regulations aimed at addressing climate change.
President Trump touted this repeal as a major deregulatory action, claiming it would eliminate billions of dollars in regulatory costs and reduce car prices. However, legal experts caution that the administration’s move could have unintended consequences. Regulating carbon dioxide is supported by the text of the Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court has affirmed this in multiple cases. If the repeal is challenged in court, the administration may face resistance and potential legal setbacks.
While the Trump administration seeks to limit federal regulation of greenhouse gases, states and private entities could step in to fill the regulatory void. This could lead to regulatory chaos and compel Congress to reinstate the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately, the administration’s efforts to roll back climate regulations could have broader legal and environmental implications that extend beyond its intended goals.
Despite the administration’s attempts to dismantle key climate regulations, the legal foundation for regulating greenhouse gases remains strong. The Clean Air Act’s mandate to regulate pollutants that endanger public health and welfare includes greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation in previous cases, and it is unlikely to reverse course on this issue. As the debate over climate regulation continues, the legal framework for addressing greenhouse gas emissions remains intact, providing a pathway for future climate action. Connecticut that states can sue power plants for carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act, and a similar legal strategy could be used to target oil companies and automakers. However, the court’s conservative majority has since become more skeptical about using the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon, meaning that such lawsuits might face an uphill battle.
Additionally, the EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding could prompt legal challenges from environmental groups and states that support climate action. The Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate pollutants that endanger public health, so the EPA’s decision to reverse its earlier determination that greenhouse gases pose a threat could be seen as a violation of the law. The outcome of these legal battles is uncertain, but they could delay the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back climate regulations.
Overall, the future of climate policy in the United States is uncertain. The Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle environmental protections could face legal challenges that prevent them from being fully implemented. However, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and the administration’s regulatory rollback efforts could make it difficult for states and environmental advocates to maintain progress on climate action. The fate of the EPA’s endangerment finding repeal will likely be decided in court, but the outcome is far from certain. The Clean Air Act, a federal law enacted to regulate air pollution, has been a key factor in determining the legal landscape for climate-related lawsuits against corporations. Under federal common law, the Clean Air Act bars individuals from suing oil companies and power plants in federal court for their contributions to climate change as long as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates greenhouse gases.
This restriction has led most climate lawsuits from states and individuals to play out in state courts, as opposed to federal courts where oil companies have sought to move them. The American Petroleum Institute (API), a leading industry group, has cited the “inherently federal nature of emissions regulation” provided by the Clean Air Act as a liability shield in Supreme Court briefs.
However, the recent repeal of the endangerment finding, which declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare, could potentially shatter this shield. The API, which has historically challenged EPA regulations on greenhouse gases, is now seeking to protect itself from federal lawsuits by acknowledging the EPA’s authority to regulate these emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Despite the API’s shift in stance, the industry may face challenges if the flood of lawsuits and state regulations becomes a threat. Congress could potentially resolve the debate by affirming in legislative text that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gases. While Republican lawmakers currently have no incentive to take such action, the unintended consequences of the endangerment finding repeal could eventually force their hand.
In the words of Hana Vizcarra, a senior climate attorney at Earthjustice, “It’s going to be chaotic.” As the legal and regulatory landscape surrounding climate change continues to evolve, the industry and policymakers will need to navigate these challenges to address the pressing issue of climate change effectively.
