In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a revolutionary deregulatory stance regarding climate change, recommending that the agency “formally reconsider” its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.1 EPA has previously denied numerous petitions to reconsider its findings.2
“We are driving a dagger through the heart of the climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age.” — EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin
Want more food and health news? Sign up for the newsletter for more well-researched, non-toxic living guidance and smart wellness advice.
Why EPA Is Considering Reversing Climate Change Science
If his proposed official reconsideration goes through, it would provide justification for the agency to roll back its regulation of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from cars, trucks, and fossil fuel-burning power plants.
And that’s not all. A total of 31 environmental rules have been earmarked by EPA for revision or repeal, including rules governing industrial air pollutants, coal-fired power plants, wastewater discharges, and more.3
“There is no possible world in which greenhouse gases are not a threat to public health.” — Brown University climate scientist Kim Cobb
“We are driving a dagger through the heart of the climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal published March 12. “Today is the most consequential day of deregulation in American history. “Zeldin’s actions reinforce President Donald Trump’s vision of climate change as a “hoax.”
“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” he famously declared on Twitter in 2012. But scientists around the world vehemently disagree. Ever more extreme weather shows that the climate is indeed changing, and new research continues to link these changes to greenhouse gas emissions.
EPA Rethinks Climate Threat — Here’s What That Mean
A 2019 paper in Science indicated that, if anything, the harm caused was worse than previously thought, and the World Health Organization maintains that, “Climate change is directly contributing to humanitarian emergencies from heatwaves, wildfires, floods, tropical storms, and hurricanes.”
The organization estimates that climate change results in $2 to 4 billion in direct damage costs to health each year.
“There is no possible world in which greenhouse gases are not a threat to public health,” Brown University climate scientist Kim Cobb told the Associated Press. “It’s simple physics coming up against simple physiology and biology, and the limits of our existing infrastructure to protect us against worsening climate-fueled extremes.”
“This decision ignores science and the law. Abdicating EPA’s clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.” — David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the NRDC.
Is the EPA Justified in the Potential Climate Change Policy Reversal?
Some close to the agency maintain, nevertheless, that a review of the 2009 finding is justified. “I think fundamentally, since 2009 the understanding of climate science and the evolution has significantly evolved,” Mandy Gunasekara, who served as EPA chief of staff during the first Trump administration, told POLITICO’S E&E News. “Whatever policy decisions are ultimately made by the administrator and his team, they should reflect the science, and I don’t think that any science should be off limits for reconsideration.”
EPA issued its 2009 declaration two years after the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Massachusetts vs. EPA dubbed greenhouse gases “air pollutants” under the 1970 Clean Air Act.4 EPA then spent 11 months developing the current funding and legal justification for issuing climate regulations for cars and trucks, and, later, power plants and airplanes.
What are your thoughts on deregulation? Who do you think stands to benefit? Get in the conversation in the comments below.
How Deregulation Would Proceed and Who Stands to Benefit (Hint: Not Us)
For Zeldin’s proposed deregulation to move forward, EPA would need to assemble new scientific advisory boards, replacing the ones it disbanded, to prove that climate change is unlinked to fossil fuels. The deregulation would then need to be litigated, potentially as far as the Supreme Court. Environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council are up for the fight.
“This decision ignores science and the law,” David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the NRDC, said in a statement. “Abdicating EPA’s clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.”
Sources:
- https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a
- https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/2010-denial-petitions-reconsideration-endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings
- https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregulatory-action-us-history
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1997251/
