The Washington Post published a report today stating that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has advised the Trump administration to repeal the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which classifies greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. This finding has underpinned federal emissions regulations for over a decade. The Post suggests that such a move, if enacted, would mark a significant shift in U.S. climate policy. The story relies on unnamed sources, leaving its claims unverified but noteworthy given the potential implications.
The Post article indicates that Trump administration officials are evaluating whether to reverse the endangerment finding, a determination first made under the Obama administration and later used by the Biden administration to impose limits on vehicle and power plant emissions. The report cites “three individuals briefed on the matter” who mention Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA chief of staff and contributor to Project 2025, and Jonathan Brightbill, a former Justice Department official, as advisors involved in the effort. On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order directing EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to assess the finding’s “legality and continuing applicability” within 30 days, with recommendations submitted to Russell Vought at the Office of Management and Budget. The EPA has not released these recommendations, and spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou declined to comment beyond confirming compliance with the order.
Because the Washington Post bases its account on three anonymous individuals rather than named officials or documented evidence. The absence of specific documentation or on-the-record statements from Gunasekara, Brightbill, or others named in the story leaves the report’s foundation uncertain, though not necessarily inaccurate.
The 2009 endangerment finding, upheld by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling affirming the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, has long been a target for critics of federal climate policy. During Trump’s first term, skeptics petitioned the EPA to repeal it, but the obstructionist bureaucrats at the agency stalled in opposition to Trump, finally, successfully, rejecting the petition on Trump’s last day in 2021, citing legal constraints. This time around the Trump administration has clearly learned from the past.
The current administration’s early actions, including the executive order, suggest a renewed interest in revisiting this issue. Figures like Tom Pyle of the American Energy Alliance and Myron Ebell of the American Lands Council, quoted by the Post, support the idea, arguing it could ease regulatory burdens and facilitate challenges to Biden-era rules.
Reversing the finding would face hurdles. Environmental attorney Sean Donahue, cited in the Post, contends that the scientific record supporting the endangerment determination—built over decades—would likely withstand legal challenges to a repeal. Previous court decisions have reinforced the EPA’s mandate, and any rollback could trigger litigation from environmental groups, but unlike Trump’s first term, Trump will have a DOJ that supports him in litigation.
If successful, repealing the endangerment finding would undermine the legal basis for many existing climate regulations, potentially affecting emissions standards for vehicles, power plants, and other sectors. Critics of the finding, including many contributors to this site, have long questioned its scientific grounding, pointing to massive uncertainties in climate models and historical data.
Without the finding, the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases could be sharply curtailed, shifting the policy landscape significantly.
The Post’s report, if confirmed, could reshape federal climate efforts. Its reliance on anonymous sources, however, warrants caution. The story’s plausibility is supported by the administration’s prior actions and the involvement of known policy advisors, yet the lack of concrete evidence—such as a leaked document or named official—keeps it in the realm of speculation for now. Observers should watch for further confirmation. Until then, this remains an intriguing but unproven claim.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The EPA itself was a bit of Nixon’s malign results.Having the EPA as a separate agency led to a “special prosecutor” mindset, of needing more and more regulations to fight “pollution”.
Congress created and authorized EPA because without such an agency, it would be impossible to enforce any Federal environmental laws that were also enacted by Congress. Presidents cannot create or destroy Congressionally authorized and funded agencies – that requires legislative action.
Congress went along with Nixon. Much as with LBJ’s Great Society program, the initiative was presidential, but a compliant Congress went along with it.
EPA was not a Congressional intitiative.
It doesn’t matter who “went along” – Congress enacted the law creating EPA and assigning authority to enforce environmental laws to EPA.
No, they didn’t it was created by Richard Nixon by EO, from Wikipedia:
LINK
Sunsettommy’s quote sorta supports both arguments. What would have happened if the order establishing the EPA was NOT ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate?
Ratification by committee hearings is not the same as establishment by votes of the entire House and Senate. Committees do not make law, only votes by both bodies can create a law. The EPA was clearly established by a Nixon EO.
Committees can “ratify” nothing. Only majority votes by both Houses of Congress can enact legislation. Committee votes are only a procedural step in the legislative process.
And then the President has to sign it or, if he vetoes it, the legislation must pass by 2/3 in both houses for it to become law.
No – only Congress can create and authorize and fund agencies. Look up the actual laws. Presidents may sign executive orders but they have no force of law. Congress assigned authority to enforce environmental laws, as is their sole authority under Article I of the Constitution.
Look up the actual laws.
Why don’t you provide some links?
The President can create an agency but Congress then has to fund it.
Correct.
Duane, I was in high school during the Nixon administration, and a political junkie. The EPA was Nixon, all the way down. No way did the Democrats have anything to do with founding the EPA.
Congress votes had everything to do with enacting any legislation including that to authorize EPA, assign authorities to EPA in individual environmental laws, and to appropriate funds for the operation of EPA.
Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in 1970 when Congress created the EPA, so yes they had everything to say about creating EPA.
Duane, I have no idea of which sources you are going off of. As if the Congressional Democrats approved of Nixon’s Vietnam policy? The quacking from the Left was The Imperial Presidency.
I consider Nixon a Rockefeller Republican, combining the worst characteristics of both parties.
End the argument by giving us a link to the congressional record for the bill in question.
You have already been told above that the EPA was created by Executive Order, and the EPA answers only to the President, not Congress. Obviously funding comes from Congress but it is not answerable to Congress.
There are several totally suspicious things brought in by the EPA. The endangerment finding is obviously one because CO2 presents no danger to anyone. The second is the “linear no threshold” (LNT) for exposure to any “pollutant”. Third is the use of a diameter (2.5 microns) as a rating for the toxicity of an aerosol particle (not its chemistry). Another is the idea that combining PM2.5 with LNT creates the ability to forecast doom, gloom and death on anyone who breathes in “particles” (of wood, sand or anything) and there there is no lower limit of exposure that doesn’t kill someone, or shorten the life of a multitude, and which can be calculated as “disability-adjusted life-years” (DALYs) And even further, that by reducing such “exposure” one can avoid such DALYs thus creating tradeable “ADALYs”. This is how far the cow has wandered off the farm. People are right now creating and selling ADALY’s related to air pollution reduction.
DALYs are six models deep, and ADALYs are seven. None of it is supported by data (measurements) or public health (both are required to make such claim).
You have heard of the DOJ haven’t you? You know, the organization actually responsible for enforcing Federal law.
There is no reason to create a group to ‘enforce Federal law’ when one already exists specifically for that purpose.
If Congress needed a group to ‘enforce the law’ they should actually pass laws and not create an unelected bureaucracy to do it for them via ‘regulations’.
Congress has abdicated all responsibility for creating the laws to be enforced by the DOJ.
DOJ and other agencies had and have little to no expertise in environmental protection. President Nixon proposed to Congress an agency to consolidate all or most environmental regulation – which became the EPA when Congress enacted legislation to do so.
Many Federal agencies have authority to enforce laws via regulation. SEC enforces security laws. FTC enforces trade laws. FCC enforces communications laws. ATF enforces alcohol, tobacco, and firearms laws. Creating specialized agencies to enforce specific areas of law is the only practical means of applying the necessary specialized expertise. DOJ also is involved in terms of filing and prosecuting criminal charges and trials, but they rely heavily upon the specialized agencies for expertise.
This is a problem with all of the agencies. As they are set up now they are law maker, law interpreter, Judge Jury and executioner. Once they get someone in their sights there is little to be done except sue at your own expense after the fact. Many horror stories, especially with EPA about inappropriate and vindictive enforcement.
I think you’re a little confused.
It is not correct that only the EPA could enforce environmental laws. Any Executive branch agency could do that. Dept of the Interior and Army Corp of Engineers to name 2.
I did not write that all environmental laws must be enforced solely by EPA .. but most assign EPA as the lead agency, because Congress explicitly authorized EPA to do so. It is the only practical means of enforcing most environmental laws. Other agencies get involved too, to the extent of specific Federal law-based authorities and their expertise.
For example, the Superfund law is enforced under the lead responsibility of EPA. Because some of the aspects of Superfund involve financial liability, financial agencies like SEC (if publicly traded securities are involved) work cooperatively with EPA. Because health effects are involved in Superfund enforcement, public health agencies like CDC also collaborate with EPA. Regulating air pollution also involves other agencies like the Dept of Energy and the Dept. of Transportation.
Environmental laws involving impacts to wildlife bring in the Fish and Wildlife and/or Fisheries Commissions. Anything involving pollution of navigable waters of the US brings US Army Corps of Engineers into the process. Etc. etc.
Any EPA action that potentially involves civil litigation or criminal prosecution also involves DOJ,
All environmental laws tend to be complex and multi disciplinary. Congress established EPA as the lead enforcement agency for most environmental laws.
Yes, I remember that law when it was passed…
“We, the congress of the United States, establish the EPA as the lead enforcement agency for most environmental laws. Most being defined by future administrative rule.”
Problem is, I can’t find where that law is recorded. I, like you, vividly remember it though.
Not sure why all the negatives for Duane.
Can a president create congressionally funded agencies?
Most of the agencies that I think of have existed my whole adult life – Federal Reserve, Post Office, IRS, … I need to research who caused these agencies to exist. eg did IRS predate the amendment to allow tax on income?
Downvoting facts – really good work voters. SMH
We haven’t seen your response at to the law that created the EPA.
A bit curious since EPA is an independent agency and the EF is by it so only EPA can repeal it.
David, can you elaborate?
The EF is a Clean Air Act action by EPA, a necessary condition for regulation if a substance. Thus repeal can only be done by EPA so they would not ask Trump to repeal it. They well might ask his approval but only they can do the actual repeal.
Ahhh, I had wondered what EF was an acronym for – it’s the actual subject of the article “Endangerment Finding”.
re: “since EPA is an independent agency”
MENTIONED in the Constitution under Article what?
Nowhere mentioned and Trump just did an EO saying independent agencies were not independent. See my
https://www.cfact.org/2025/02/24/will-the-president-pursue-grid-reliability/ where I discuss Trump telling independent FERC to restore reliability.
Trump is really pressing this issue. Each law creating an independent agency says the agency bosses can only be fired by the Pres for cause. So Trump just deliberately fired one without cause. Game on!
Yes, it is very definitely game on. Because the independence of ‘independent agencies’ from the Executive Branch is a question which has not received nearly enough attention from the Supreme Court as a matter of constitutional law.
The constitution describes three branches of government. So if a so-called ‘independent agency’ is established by Congress, does that agency belong to the Congress, or does it belong to the Executive Branch, or does it belong to the Judicial Branch?
Or, heaven forbid, does that ‘independent agency’ belong to all three branches of government simultaneously? (In which case, it belongs to none of those three branches, for all practical purposes. And it can do whatever it wants to with no accountability for its actions.)
We’ve got a big problem here because Chief Justice Roberts is now doing what he is famous for, and that is to avoid emerging constitutional questions which are of utmost importance to quickly resolve.
Bingo.
Humphry’s Executor was bad law, and already partially overturned. Trump is forcing the issue.
Congress has long established agencies it controls, like the Congressional Budget Office and Congressional Research Service. Articles I and II of the Constitution do not prohibit such agencies independent of the Administrative branch.
The Constitutional debate is whether it requires an affirmative grant of such power to Congress in Article I or a negative denial of such power in Article II. Getting a case ripe for such a judgement has not come before SCOTUS as yet, since SCOTUS has denied standing to both the legislative and administrative branches to sue each other. To bring a case to SCOTUS will require a suit be filed by a third party who can demonstrate they’ve been harmed by either branch.
It will be very interesting to see if SCOTUS is presented a justiciable case any time soon.
I think the constitution is quite clear. All executive authority is vested in the president. He’s (and the VP) the only government official who is elected by votes of all the people.
It seems clear that Trump is maneuvering to test Humphrey’s Executor in the Supreme Court which will likely be overturned. After all there is nothing in the constitution that gives congress or the courts the power to limit the presidents authority over the unelected bureaucracy.
to test Humphrey’s Executor in the Supreme Court which will likely be overturned.
That looks like the intent of several of his EO’s
I think that if you phrased the query correctly, an ‘AI’ program would agree with the Duane stance (and give a very similar statement to ‘his’).
Everyone in the chain of command that allowed $20 billion to be siphoned for NGOs ought to be fired.
Trump said today at his public Cabinet Meeting that he thought the EPA was going to cut about 60 percent of its employees.
The EPA has delegated to the States that wanted asked for it, most of the needed permitting and enforcement authority.
There is no reason for most of their employees (outside of the fact that they need money to live on.)
Only an “independent” bureaucrat could love the idea of “independent” bureaucrats. Accountable to… nobody.
SCOTUS will rule. But it may take a couple of years and injunctions will be in place until a final judgement is rendered.
Under Federal law, EPA is only independent from other administrative agencies, but it is still under the control of the administrative branch (i.e., the President) and its Administrator defined as a cabinet level appointment. Presidents can set EPA policy via the EPA and in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), but only as authorized by Congress (see “Chevron doctrine”) in the several environmental laws.
It is under the EXECUTIVE Branch, not the Administrative branch. The Executive Branch is established by the US Constitution Article II. Since the EPA was established by a presidential EO, it is part of the Executive Branch.
The term is “Executive Branch” not “Administrative Branch”.
It’s a Freudian thing, stated by one that is, aspires to be, or has great respect for, the Administrative bubble.
EPA will give prior warning to the Whitehouse so they can be prepared for the legal onslaught.
Ending the Endangerment Finding will be the tipping point for the climate emergency bad dream. That nightmare will rapidly collapse. Ending it will cause many nervous breakdowns here in Wokeachusetts.
Could it really be “that easy”?
Nixon’s War on Cancer, supported by Jimmy Carter, collapsed when Reagan refused to back it. As it was mostly an exercise in “proving a negative”, it required active suspension of disbelief.
Is this another case of “Push News” or “Push Noozing” (like push polling)?
The worm may not yet have turned but it has certainly awakened and is looking around.
It seems to me there has been enough new data and analysis since the endangerment finding almost 20 years ago that one could easily claim on solid scientific foundation that the threat that was imagined to be posed by CO2 is now understood to be much less with the result that there is no need to regulate CO2 in any manner. Efforts should continue to be made to assess the impact of man-made CO2 on climate but with proper scientific skepticism borne of insufficient data and insufficient analytical understanding of the fundamentally chaotic phenomena of climate.
“the threat that was imagined to be posed by CO2 is now understood to be much less”
Not to mention the benefits!
Efforts should continue to be made to assess the impact of man-made CO2 on climate …
Not the correct approach.
In its first days, the charter was to understand climate change both natural and anthropogenic. That was immediately transformed to understanding the impact of CO2 on the climate. The rest is history.
What is needed is to go back to the initial proposal – understanding the climate and not single out one factor or another as the primary driver, but discover how things actually work.
Every proposed action is based on the CO2 assertion, from Net Zero 2050, on down. Cut out that basis and the entire structure collapses, after wasting 12 $trillion.
The grifters who have soaked up most of that 12 trillion don’t consider it wasted, FWIW. ;0
Sounds like the Scientific Method being reinstated. Hopefully, the fools that discarded it will get their just rewards!
Unfortunately, the fools that discarded have already got their (un)just rewards! From the lowly taxpayer.
AND *not* to ASSUME that any of it is “man made.”
I believe that was part of my proposal.
Well said by SN4
Not to forget what is the EPA GHG Endangerment Theory:
https://rclutz.com/2025/02/24/dangerous-epa-ghg-endangerment-finding/
“Validation” has a real meaning to people who produce real products and demonstrate to their customers that the products meet their documented needs. The temperature record is questionable, the climate models are, apparently, yielding way-too-hot results, and the theory is very incomplete.
Sounds like at least two LOE’s invalidated to me. 🙂
The block that jumps off the graphic for me is “Validated Climate Models…”. The remaining text of the block indicated the conclusion was presumed before the validation was planned.
In blue box, should not be its 3 LOE’s…if any single one of its LOE;s is invalidated, the entire theory collapses.
“[T]he scientific record supporting the endangerment determination—built over decades—would likely withstand legal challenges to a repeal” unless it can be shown that that scientific record was built while intentionally ignoring any contrary evidence.
“intentionally ignoring”?
More like actively suppressing.
Keeping with your insightful comment re: “Validation” above, when the inevitable law suits get to the SC, Trump’s DOJ need only demonstrate that overturning it is ‘reasonable’ given the current evidence. The ‘reasonable’ part comes from the original SC decision upholding the EF as the SC explicitly identified they are not capable of judging ‘science’ and thus the argument supporting a regulation need only be ‘reasonable’.
So it is ‘reasonable’ to overturn the EF based on an argument that 1 or all of the pillars identified in the diagram above are not ‘validated’ or are ‘invalid’.
The first is easy “After 20 additional years, new data and analysis demonstrates that the measured GAST record may be contaminated by UHI and by unverified statistical techniques for homogenizing the data. As such the idea of warming being Record setting or in any way unique can not be validated given the new evidence.”
The model one is equally easy given that the models make unphysical predictions not seen in the real world and thus ‘new evidence’ indicates the models are not fit for purpose and can not be said to be validated.
There’s no need to attack the theory. Though its likely possible its unnecessary once 2 of the 3 pillars are removed so I wouldn’t even try to pick that fight.
Now, if the SC sticks to its “we don’t judge the science, we only judge if the argument is reasonable” than clearly both of these are ‘reasonable’ interpretations of existing scientific evidence and would easily lead to allowing Trump’s EPA to ditch the EF.
In other words there’s no need for the Trump administration to ‘prove the science’ or use detailed and in depth scientific arguments in court, they need only to make ‘reasonable’ arguments when overturning (replacing?) the EF based on ‘new evidence’. Than in court just argue that the ‘new evidence leads to these reasonable conclusions’.
It may take all 4 years of Trump’s term to wind its way through the courts to the SC though.
As US government officials are removed from Chinese payrolls more destructive regulations will be removed. Yes, it appears that corporations benefited from these regulations but the ultimate goal was the destruction of Western economies. Corporations and Universities were used as a tool to accomplish this end.
All those Chinese students in American colleges pay the FULL price. And, where if not those universities did China get most of its modern technology? Of course they’ll steal what they can- but at the universities, it’s handed to them.
Well a really scary reality is that most of the new research papers published today have at least one if not all Asian authors. American students are too busy learning Journalism, Political Science or Minority Equality Studies to do actual useful research.
Yes
Yes. The Big Science publishers must be exceedingly happy with the massive boom in China. I’ll bet China Science pays full load for all publishing costs.
It was very difficult to deal with universities when I worked in industry, as they had no concept of the restrictions on data transfers under the International Traffic of Arms Regulations (ITAR). They also had no intention of learning about, and implementing, such regulations on campus, as it would threaten the full-tuition money flow.
Trump should threaten to lock Chinese students out of our universities- as one of his tools in our long struggle with that nation. Since China plays the long game- I hope Trump realizes this. I doubt Trump worries about alienating the universities, being hot beds of leftism.
They worked hardest among my peers. They were not always from wealth.
A thoughtful, well-researched, well-documented takedown of the Endangerment Finding would probably be the strongest action EPA could take against the cult of climate alarmism. It would single-handedly remove the justification for a host of federal regulations, and make it somewhat more difficult for anyone to re-impose it in the future, as that administration would have to rebut the cold hard facts that would have been cited in eliminating the EF.
And it wouldn’t be hard to do, given the abundance of material that regulating GHGs for climate protection is completely unnecessary.
“It would single-handedly remove the justification for a host of federal regulations”
and kill the justification for state net zero laws
A thoughtful, well-researched, well-documented takedown of the Endangerment Finding would probably be the strongest action EPA could take against the cult of climate alarmism.
*****************
My thought as well David. If indeed the scientific validity of the EF can be challenged and disproven, that is the route which Trump and Zeldin should take. I have been advocating for something like this for quite a while now.
Fight fire with fire.
I agree David. It should be done. But what would be even better and more permanent would be for Congress to get the courage to amend the Clean Air Act to specifically exclude carbon dioxide and methane. A future “progressive” administration or an activist “judge” could reverse the Endangerment Finding. But a change in the law would be almost impossible to reverse.
You are right. Amending the Clean Air Act as you suggest would be the most effective action to take. But a point-by-point rejection of the Endangerment Finding would be a godsend to everyone on the skeptic side by providing an authoritative source that could be used as a reference when responding to alarmist claims.
People may not realize that the Endangerment Finding was premised almost completely on the IPCC’s findings. There was little or no independent analysis by EPA of the harms posed by GHGs. Rebutting the Endangerment Finding would be a rebuttal of the IPCC as well.
Now, you are talking!
Or, perhaps providing a precise definition for “health” and “well being.”
The whole point of the original law was to eliminate stuff people would breathe that would cause immediate and cumulative long term health issues. SMOG and other things.
Humans emit CO2 and methane, meaning it is not an immediate health risk.
Consider that H2O presents a health risk. There are cases where people drank too much water and died. Then there are those lost at sea and in lakes when their ability to swim failed before they could be rescued.
It’s my recollection that the Clean Air Act specifically discusses Oxides of Nitrogen, Carbon monoxide, and particulates. It is devoid of any mention of CO2. This apparently doesn’t preclude regulation of CO2 but would obviously make it necessary to make a case that it should be included. That would also mean that a case can be made that CO2 should specifically be excluded.
I’ll make the case now: Plants use CO2, and we exhale it. If CO2 is a “pollutant”, then I guess so is water vapor…
If CO2 is a pollutant, then some 360 million Americans will face federal pollution charges due to human metabolism resulting in CO2 and methane emissions.
Of course it will be hard to find a judge who is not on trial.
Which revision?
Not unexpected. When (not if) the endangerment finding is actually withdrawn and the resulting regulations are withdrawn it will of course trigger lawsuits from the greens. The suits will get to SCOTUS eventually and it is virtually certain that SCOTUS will not only uphold the right of the Trump administration to withdraw the endangerment finding, but they will also rule that the 2007 SCOTUS ruling is overturned on the basis that it relied upon the Chevron doctrine which was repealed last year by SCOTUS.
According to the legislation, the EPA has the authority to add and subtract items from the list of pollutants.
In good faith.
Hard reconcile “in good faith” with the way the Federal Government has bloated over the past several decades.
Well, this is a bit of a hopeful sign. CO2 is not a atmospheric pollutant. The Climate Crazies only beef is that it might be raising the planets average surface air temperature to “slightly less coolish”.
But, we don’t want to throw out good anti-air pollution laws when we get rid of the Endangerment Finding.
We want clean air and water — guaranteed by reasonable and clear regulations that prevent abuses by industry but that are also based on economics — driving industries out of the country due to demands that cannot be accomplished immediately except at industry-destroying costs have to be mitigated into sensible transition plans that allow improvements over time to accomplish the same laudable goals.
But, if the Waters rule could be reversed, then the endangerment finding can be also.
“…the scientific record supporting the endangerment determination—built over decades—would likely withstand legal challenges to a repeal….” I doubt it.
The Courts tend to tread very lightly with technical cases. I like to think that the judges / justices realize that they are not technically competent. So they either appoint a Special Master to advise them on the technical aspects, or they defer to the Agency involved. That latter “out” has been removed with the repeal of the “Chevron deference”, so it comes down to who is appointed as the Special Master.
There is always the subject matter experts giving testimony. Assuming the court accepts their credentials. Assuming the other side gets their SMEs challanged.
Would be fun to see such a case with M.Mann being the SME for keeping CO2.
It is ridiculous that the Endangerment Finding ever existed in the first place, and that we have been forced to argue against and overturn something that never had any basis in fact. This needed to happen a long time ago. Trump needs to move on this immediately.
Trump’s back and now so are the ‘bombshell’ unverified reports with no supporting documents or on-the-record sources.
Big Brother is the symbolic character in George Orwell’s novel “1984,” the leader of Oceania a totalitarian state in which the ruling party, i.e., the federal government, Congress and department (EPA) wields total power “for its own sake” over the people … their power is for their own sake. If I am an expert witness, you can’t simply erase me. “Big Brother” is constantly watching us, and the people are not entitled to privacy or independent opinion, rather are classed as subjects to ensure their ideological purity. We now consider the term “Big Brother” as symbolic for abuse of government power. Big Brother once created is considered infallible and all-powerful and will never die. Does Big Brother exist today? But does Big Brother actually “exist,” the way you and I exist? Answer: “You do not exist” you are an “unperson,” an example of Doublethink. Now is the time for change.
The 2009 Endangerment Finding has been superceded as the primary legal justification for carbon regulation by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed by Congress in 2022.
Rescinding the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding is therefore a mostly symbolic act with little or no direct impact on the ability of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions.
An Endangerment Finding is a component of the Clean Air Act Section 108/112 process for adding criteria pollutants to the original list which was enacted fifty years ago as part of the original Clean Air Act legislation.
The wording of the IRA allows the EPA to bypass the need for the criteria pollutant approach, and thus the need for an Endangerment Finding, by directly labeling carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds as pollutants.
To wit, the wording of the IRA specifically identifies carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride as pollutants. Furthermore, it directs the EPA to reduce these ‘greenhouse gases’ and it provides funding for those purposes.
Under the Biden administration, with authorization from the Congress through the 2022 IRA legislation, the EPA chose a regulatory framework for carbon based on a CAA Section 111 approach, as opposed to the use of the long and expensive CAA Section 108/112 approach which requires an Endangerment Finding followed by a NAAQS.
Concerning the major questions doctrine as was enuciated in West Virginia vs EPA, the IRA’s wording was carefully chosen in 2022 as a means of allowing the EPA and the climate lawfare activists to make the claim that Congress has clearly expressed its opinion about the alleged dangers of carbon GHG’s and has given the EPA explicit authority, backed by funding, to reduce emissions of those carbon GHG’s.
In the next several months, we should expect to see a series of lawsuits being filed against the Trump administration which invoke the language of the IRA to force the retention of the EPA’s Biden-era anti-carbon regulatory framework.
IMHO, there is a more than even chance these lawsuits will succeed in keeping Biden’s anti-carbon framework alive. At least on paper, anyway.
The only way to ensure that these upcoming lawsuits fail is for Congress to enact a full repeal of the 2022 IRA. Something the Congress has to do anyway if it is to do its proper part in getting federal spending under control.
As I write this comment, intense debate is now underway inside the Congress concerning the federal budget, and whether or not it should be enacted as a Continuing Resolution.
The version of the budget now before the Congress reflects Joe Biden’s spending priorities, not Donald Trump’s priorities, and contains all the spending that Elon Musk’s DOGE effort is attempting to eliminate. Funding which includes money for the Green New Deal and for EPA enforcement of anti-carbon regulations as directed by the IRA.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-1-26-how-to-rescind-the-endangerment-finding-in-a-way-that-will-stick
Every clause:
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated
Standard verbiage, but applicable. It will be interesting to see if the debt affects the $2B mentioned.
“Environmental attorney Sean Donahue, cited in the Post, contends that the scientific record supporting the endangerment determination—built over decades—would likely withstand legal challenges to a repeal”
I think it’s time to have this battle.
I would suggest to Lee Zeldin that he should have all the data adjustments corrected. Correct data would show that basis the for the “climate crisis” is minimal at best.
I remember that when James Hansen “adjusted” the historic temperature data, he overwrote the previous data. I am confident that someone has the original temperature data set.
I am confused. Wouldn’t this be contrary to deeply held religious beliefs?
Separation of Church and State.
The Federal Government is not allowed to mandate climate religion.
Doesn’t CO2 need to be re-classified as a NON-pollutant.
Interesting POV question.
I think that would open a Pandora’s box requiring everything to be declared one way or another.
Not sure the juice is worth the squeeze.