Chicago expert raises alarm as U.S. EPA seeks to walk back greenhouse gas regulations
The U.S. EPA declined CBS News Chicago's request for an interview. But the Illinois EPA said it reviewing the proposal to rescind the declaration issued back in 2009 under President Barack Obama.
Meanwhile, climate experts in Illinois and around the country are concerned about the ramifications.
Lee Zeldin, President Trump's pick to head the U.S. EPA, announced Tuesday from an Indiana auto dealership that the agency wants to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
"If finalized, today's announcement would amount to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States," Zeldin said, "a proposal to eliminate to the endangerment finding, to eliminate greenhouse gas standards — all the regulations that came out, including the electric vehicle mandates, all of the greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty."
The 2009 finding that Zeldin is proposing eliminating determined that six specific greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) — endangered public health and welfare. The finding set the platform for actions to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
"it's the fundamental linchpin of the Clean Air Act," said Howard Learner, chief executive officer and executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center.
Learner called the U.S. EPA proposal a denial of both climate change and "fact-based determinations" about greenhouse gases.
"Climate change is real. It's happening," he said. "That can't be denied as a basis of scientific fact."
Learner said the impact in the Chicago area and elsewhere in Illinois would be dirtier air and more contributions to climate change.
"It's showing up in our weather. It's showing up in health risks. It's showing up in the Great Lakes. It's showing up in ways that change our lives here in Chicago and across Illinois," Learner said.
In a news release, the U.S. EPA said the 2009 finding paved the way for electric vehicle mandates, and led to "significant uncertainties and massive costs" for the American people and automakers related to "general regulations of greenhouse gases from vehicles and trucks."
The proposal, according to the EPA release, would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, starting with the EPA's first greenhouse gas regulations set under the order in 2010, and including "off-cycle credits like the much-hated start-stop feature on most new cars."
CBS News Chicago asked if Zeldin's proposal could also eliminate vehicle emissions tests in Illinois. The Illinois EPA said it is too early to say, while Learner said this is the time the state can make a difference.
"We're going to be looking for Illinois to step up to make sure people here have healthier, clean air," said Learner.
The news release said if finalized, the proposal is expected to save Americans $54 billion in costs through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards — including the Biden EPA's electric vehicle mandate.
"If Congress wants to amend Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and tell us that they want us to be regulating the heck out of carbon dioxide, methane, and these other greenhouse gases, then we will follow the law," said Zeldin.
The U.S. EPA proposal is not a done deal yet.
"We'll go through a public comment period," Zeldin said. "We'll see what the American public has to say about everything that we put out right now — on all of this."
The public comment period on this starts now and will last 45 days. Meanwhile, environmental groups are expected to take the U.S. EPA to court to challenge the rule.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
27 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Maria Shriver's Brutal Takedown Of The Kennedy Center's Trump Rename Is Going Viral
Last week, Republicans advanced an amendment that would rename the "John F. Kennedy Opera House" to the "First Lady Melania Trump Opera House." Yeeep, the "First Lady Melania Trump Opera House." Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson explained, "This designation is an excellent way to recognize her support and commitment to promoting the arts." Well, now they want to name the entire Kennedy Center complex after Trump. Rep. Bob Onder from Missouri introduced a bill that would rename the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to the "Donald J. Trump Center for the Performing Arts." According to The Hill, Rep. Onder explained, "I cannot think of a more ubiquitous symbol of American exceptionalism in the arts, entertainment, and popular culture at large than President Trump." Sooo, as you all know, Maria Shriver is JFK's niece. She responded to the news with this tweet: "This is insane. It makes my blood boil. It's so ridiculous, so petty, so small minded. Truly, what is this about? It's always about something. 'Let's get rid of the Rose Garden. Let's rename the Kennedy Center.' What's next?" What's next? She asks. Well, this person in the replies offered a possible suggestion: I wouldn't put it past him!
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump and Congress gave huge wins to corporate tax dodgers
The future is bright for corporate tax dodgers. While the rest of the world is working together on a plan to crackdown on big companies' use of offshore tax havens, both Congress and the White House are doing everything they can to sabotage these plans for tax fairness. It's no secret that many major American companies pay lower effective tax rates than their workers. In 2023, almost 10 percent of the nation's largest corporations paid nothing at all in corporate taxes, including profitable giants like Pfizer. Some companies, such as FedEx and T-Mobile, have even found ways to pay negative tax rates, meaning they received tax refunds from the government. One of the main tricks that corporations use to dodge their taxes is to shift their earnings abroad to offshore tax havens. These tax havens drain nearly a half-trillion dollars from the world's economies each year, including billions of dollars from the U.S. While corporate executives and tiny states like the Cayman Islands benefit from this arrangement, the rest of the world loses out on revenues that could be used for priorities such as healthcare, education and support for workers. In response, the majority of the world's nations came together in recent years to create a set of rules to fight back against corporate tax evasion. The global minimum tax is a plan to set a minimum corporate tax rate of 15 percent worldwide, preventing a few small nations from setting ultra-low rates to attract corporate tax dodgers. More than 50 countries and territories have already passed laws that would bring this deal into effect, including seven of the world's 10 largest economies. The Biden administration worked together with the rest of the world on these efforts to fight offshore tax evasion. The U.S. implemented its own version of a minimum tax that was projected to raise $25 billion a year from corporate tax dodgers. Although it fell short of being fully compliant with the deal's standards, it was still a huge step forward for global economic justice. But this progress started to fall apart on day one of the second Trump administration, when the White House withdrew the U.S. from the global minimum tax deal on the grounds that 'American companies may face retaliatory international tax regimes' if they continue their offshore tax evasion. The Trump administration also tried to sabotage U.N. negotiations on an international tax framework, saying that they 'reject the very nature of these discussions.' U.S. diplomats even walked out of the meeting and encouraged others to follow them. Embarrassingly, not a single diplomat from any other nation joined them in this stunt. This rejection of global progress against corporate tax evasion then moved into the halls of Congress. The 'big, beautiful' bill originally contained a policy penalizing countries for passing laws that comply with the global minimum tax, actively punishing those who are fighting back against offshore tax havens. This provision was only removed from the bill after the Treasury Department pressured other major countries into excluding the U.S. from the minimum corporate tax rate — a major blow to the fight against corporate tax dodgers. Taking an even closer look at the reconciliation bill reveals how corporate interests are pushing this agenda. The bill originally contained a provision partially exempting the U.S. Virgin Islands from our own corporate minimum tax at the cost of $33 million in annual tax revenue. The Washington Post reported that the inclusion of this obscure policy in the Republicans' bill was likely encouraged by Lawrence and David Golub, two billionaire brothers who have spent millions on lobbying and campaign contributions to secure loopholes for their Virgin Islands-based asset management company. This provision was thankfully removed from the final version of the bill. Republican politicians are not defending offshore tax havens because Republican voters are demanding it. These efforts to sabotage global efforts against corporate tax evasion are being pushed on the American people by a small handful of wealthy donors who have the most to gain from an unfair tax system. Voters in both parties are tired of politicians making policy to benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the many. A bill containing historically large healthcare cuts while bending over backwards for big corporate tax dodgers is only just the latest example. So long as Congress works on behalf of big corporations who hide their money overseas, their efforts will pose a threat to workers everywhere.
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
A Landmark Deal Just Reshaped the Future of US Rail
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Two major rail companies have come together to unveil a plan to create America's first transcontinental railroad. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern announced on Tuesday that they would be connecting over 50,000 route miles across 43 states from the East Coast to the West Cost, linking around 100 ports. The plan comes as part of a merger where Union Pacific will be acquiring Norfolk Southern, and together they'll form a company worth of over $250 billion. A spokesperson for Union Pacific told Newsweek that "rail moves almost everything ordinary Americans use—you name it, and at some point, the railroad hauled it." "As rail becomes a faster, more efficient, more reliable and more accessible way to ship goods, we expect prices to fall for businesses and consumers nationwide," they added. "The combination will create a more accessible, sustainable and lower-cost supply chain for customers and consumers by making rail a more efficient option for more shippers," the spokesperson said. They added: "By creating new routes, the transcontinental railroad will unlock rail options for shippers in regions where railroad connections are less efficient today—like in the Ohio Valley and on both sides of the Mississippi River." When approached for comment, Norfolk Southern pointed Newsweek to the merger information on its website. Why It Matters If the plan goes ahead, it would mean America would have its first transcontinental railroad. However, in order to get to that stage, the plan has get approval from the Surface Transportation Board (STB), an independent federal agency that oversees various aspects of the rail industry, which could prove difficult. When the agency approved a merger between Kansas City Southern Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, it took a seven-day hearing and a seven-year oversight period, as well as many additional conditions, Reuters reported. There have also been reports that labor unions are looking to fight the merger over concerns about regulatory and legal pushback. A photo of Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific locomotives. A photo of Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific locomotives. Union Pacific What To Know Based on Union Pacific's stock price on July 16, the deal will value each Norfolk Southern share at $320, which is 25 percent higher than what Norfolk Southern's average share price has been over the past 30 trading days. This means the merger will be offering investors a sizable premium. The companies are also aiming to create the safest railroad in North America, while also competing with Canadian railroads to "win back U.S. freight volume and American jobs," the company press release added. As the railroad will also connect 10 international interchanges and around 100 ports, the companies' say it will also "unlock strong international trade routes and offer greater access to U.S.-made goods." "I believe the merger will create efficiencies in transcontinental train operation that has the potential for reducing costs of moving goods and thus be of benefit to ordinary Americans," Allan M Zarembski, director of Railroad Engineering and Safety Program at the University of Delaware, told Newsweek. He said that "efficient railroad operations is a key to any industrial society in terms of the movement of goods." P. S. Sriraj, director of the Urban Transportation Center and director of METSI and Research Programs at the University of Illinois at Chicago, also told Newsweek the proposed merger will result in "the ability to move goods from coast to coast in a seamless manner." "The system integration between two railroads is likely to take time but if approved and operationalized, could have the ability to decrease prices and have them be shipped in a more efficient and faster manner," he said. However, Zarembski said that there are always "risks in the initial integration stage of a merger between two major entities like Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern." "This includes initial operating inefficiencies and more important potential safety related issues in the integration of two large rails systems with different standards, traditions, and safety and maintenance practices," he said. However, he added that this could be addressed through "careful planning and integration activities." Large scale mergers can also be associated with fears of "monopoly that could in turn have a negative impact on shippers and consumers," Sriraj said. "However, in this particular instance, there are other class I railroads that are competing with the rail industry as well as the presence of over the road trucking industry that act as competition," he said. There is also risk that some jobs may be eliminated in these sorts of mergers, he added. Overall, Sriraj said the plan "could be a potential step forward for U.S. rail as it tries to ward off the competition in the freight sector from other surface transportation modes such as the trucking industry and the aviation industry." What People Are Saying A spokesperson for Union Pacific also told Newsweek: "By decreasing highway congestion, the combination will reduce wear-and-tear on taxpayer-funded roads. Notably, railroads maintain their own infrastructure. There are also benefits for Americans in local communities across the rail network. Expected growth in rail volumes as a result of the combination will drive additional employment opportunities in communities across the combined rail network, because every rail transportation job supports 3.9 additional jobs across the U.S. economy. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern invested $300 million in philanthropic giving from 2020 to 2025, supporting workforce development, safety initiatives and vibrant spaces where people want to live and work. The combined network includes 24,970 bridges, over 50,000 route miles of track and a multitude of public-private projects focused on community safety, security and well-being." Jim Vena, Union Pacific Chief Executive Officer, said: "Railroads have been an integral part of building America since the Industrial Revolution, and this transaction is the next step in advancing the industry. Imagine seamlessly hauling steel from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Colton, California and moving tomato paste from Huron, California to Fremont, Ohio. Lumber from the Pacific Northwest, plastics from the Gulf Coast, copper from Arizona and Utah, and soda ash from Wyoming. Right now, tens of thousands of railroaders are moving almost everything we use. You name it, and at some point, the railroad hauled it." Hualiang (Harry) Teng, director of the USDOT Railroad University Transportation Center, commissioner of the Nevada High Speed Rail Authority and director of the Railroad, High Speed Rail and Transit Initiative, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, told Newsweek: "The shipping cost will be reduced which will translate into lower selling prices for most of the commodities that ordinary Americans use everyday. No negative impact as far as I can see. Some facilities such as classification yards would be eliminated which will cause laying off employees. The reduction of employees could be significant." He added: "This merger will immediately trigger the merging between BNSF and CSX, making it another transcontinental railroad, competing with the UP/NS company. The outstanding UP/NS merge may be out of balance in the railroad economy, which would be dangerous to the U.S. economy. These two pairs of merged companies, UP/NS and BNSF/CSX would be stabilized for a long while in the future in the U.S." What Happens Next The plan for completion is currently set for 2027, the spokesperson for Union Pacific told Newsweek. "The announcement was just the first step in the process of bringing Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern together," they said. Although, they added that "integration cannot begin until after regulatory approval and closing." "Until closing, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern will continue to operate separately," the spokesperson said. The next steps in the process include that shareholders will vote to approve the transaction. Within the next six months, the two companies will then file their application with the STB, where they will describe how "the combined rail network will provide safer, faster and more reliable service and increased competition to a broad range of stakeholders," the spokesperson said. The STB will then review. If the plan goes through, Zarembski said he suspected a merger between the two other major rail companies BNSF and CSX could follow, "with the result of having two major US transcontinental railroads." "This may be a good thing in the long run as both mergers could experience significant efficiencies and synergies," he said.
