Trump moves to scrap climate rule tying greenhouse gases to public health harm
The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule rescinds a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.
The EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, announced the proposed rule change on a podcast ahead of an official announcement set for Tuesday in Indiana.
Repealing the endangerment finding 'will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America', Zeldin said on the Ruthless podcast.
Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what Zeldin said was 'the greatest day of deregulation in American history'. A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin's plan.
He singled out the endangerment finding as 'the holy grail of the climate change religion' and said he was thrilled to end it 'as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success'.
The EPA also called for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
Three former EPA leaders have criticized Zeldin, saying his March proposal would endanger the lives of millions of Americans and abandon the agency's dual mission to protect the environment and human health.
'If there's an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they're doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about,' Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under the Republican president George W Bush, said after Zeldin's plan was made public.
The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding.
Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases.
But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 supreme court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said it was virtually 'impossible to think that the EPA could develop a contradictory finding [to the 2009 standard] that would stand up in court'.
Doniger and other critics accused Trump's Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a 'kill shot'' that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change.
'The endangerment finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest US source of climate-causing pollution,' said Peter Zalzal, associate vice-president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
'Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPA's responsibility to protect Americans' health and wellbeing,' he said. 'It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our government's responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
The New York Post is coming to California as News Corp CEO takes a pop at LA's ‘jaded' journalism
Rupert Murdoch is bringing his New York Post to the West Coast. In something of a surprise announcement Monday, News Corp. said that it will launch a new daily newspaper in Los Angeles early next year called The California Post, expanding on the brand of the nation's most-read tabloid. Besides being based in Los Angeles, the new outlet will feature what News Corp. is describing as a 'robust staff of editors, reporters and photographers dedicated to covering news, entertainment, politics, culture, sports and business,' adding that the paper will cover the news from a 'distinctly Californian perspective.' 'Los Angeles and California surely need a daily dose of The Post as an antidote to the jaundiced, jaded journalism that has sadly proliferated,' News Corp. CEO Robert Thomson said in Monday's announcement. 'We are at a pivotal moment for the city and the state, and there is no doubt that The Post will play a crucial role in engaging and enlightening readers, who are starved of serious reporting and puckish wit,' Thomson added. Thomson has tapped veteran journalist Nick Papps to be The California Post's editor-in-chief. Papps, who will report to the New York Post's top editor Keith Poole, has experience reporting in California as he served as News Corp Australia's West Coast correspondent for nearly three years. With the new addition to The New York Post Media Group, which was already home to the Post, Page Six and Decider, Thomson said that Poole's duties and oversight have now grown. 'I am also pleased that Keith Poole's remit is expanding, as he will now be responsible for covering not just New York, but California, the U.S., the world and, perhaps, Mars,' he quipped. 'This is the next manifestation of our national brand,' Poole said. 'California is the most populous state in the country, and is the epicenter of entertainment, the AI revolution and advanced manufacturing—not to mention a sports powerhouse. Yet many stories are not being told, and many viewpoints are not being represented.' He added: 'With The California Post, we will bring a common-sense, issue-based approach to metropolitan journalism. We'll tell the stories that our readers care about the most, but others overlook, and we'll do so with clarity and our trademark conviction, across print, digital and the platforms where audiences live today.' According to News Corp., Los Angeles is home to the second-largest concentration of Post readers – and California as a whole accounts for over seven million unique visitors a month to the paper's digital sites. On top of that, 90 percent of the Post's digital audience lives outside the New York area. The new California Post, which is scheduled to go live in early 2026, will include a daily print edition as well as dedicated web pages. The paper will also feature national coverage from the New York Post that is relevant to California readers. Based on the mock-up front pages the Post unveiled in its announcement of the new venture, the California Post will replicate the right-wing populist tone and tenor the Murdoch-owned tabloid is known for. It also appears that Page Six, the paper's influential gossip section, will be featured in the Golden State publication, based on the mock images. 'Our content is read everywhere from the corner store to the corner office,' NYPMG CEO Sean Giancola said, referencing the New York Post's status as America's oldest newspaper. 'We are trusted by millions for our direct and plain-spoken approach to news, and The New York Post has been the voice of the people in New York for 200 years,' he added. 'California is a vibrant, dynamic market where our unique journalistic ethos will resonate and engage audiences in meaningful ways.' It would also appear that News Corp. thinks the financial and editorial struggles that The Los Angeles Times has faced in recent years -- which have seen hundreds of staffers laid off and an present an opening for the Post to take some of that market.
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
New Jersey says 3 chemical makers agree to 'forever chemical' settlement worth up to $2 billion
DuPont and two other companies will pay New Jersey up to $2 billion to settle environmental claims stemming from PFAS, commonly referred to as 'forever chemicals," the companies announced Monday. State Environmental Commissioner Shawn LaTourette said the deal with DuPont, Chemours and Corteva is the largest such settlement in the state's history. It calls for the companies to pay $875 million over 25 years and create a remediation fund of up $1.2 billion. The companies will split the costs under the deal, which must still be approved by the courts. PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation's air, water and soil. They are commonly referred to as 'forever chemicals.' DuPont said the settlement will resolve 'all pending environmental and other claims' for 'legacy" contamination claims at four sites where the companies operated in the state. It comes just months after the state said chemical manufacturer 3M has agreed to pay up $450 million to resolve lawsuits over natural resource contamination stemming from PFAS. "Polluters who place profit above public well-being by releasing poisonous PFAS and other contamination in our State can expect to be held responsible to clean up their mess and fully compensate the State and its citizens for the precious natural resources they've damaged or destroyed," LaTourette said. PFAS were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across non-stick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand rain and keep people dry. The chemicals resist breaking down, though, meaning they linger in the environment. Environmental activists say PFAS makers knew about the health harms of PFAS long before they were made public. The same attributes that make the chemicals so valuable – resistance to breakdown – make them hazardous to people. PFAS accumulate in the body, which is why the Environmental Protection Agency set their limits for drinking water at 4 parts per trillion for two common types — PFOA and PFOS — that are phased out of manufacturing but still are present in the environment.
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Judge rules that Rhode Island's gun permit system does not violate Second Amendment
A federal judge says Rhode Island 's gun permit system, which requires residents to show 'a need' to openly carry a firearm throughout the state, does not violate the Second Amendment. In a ruling handed down Friday, U.S. District Judge William Smith granted Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha's motion for summary judgment that dismisses a lawsuit filed by a coalition of gun owners in 2023. The lawsuit stems from a Rhode Island law dictating how the state issues firearms permits. According to the statute, local officials are required to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who meets the specific criteria outlined in the statute. However, it also allows the attorney general's office to issue open-carry permits 'upon a proper showing of need.' Unlike municipalities, the attorney general is not required to issue such permits. The plaintiffs, largely led by Michael O'Neil, a lobbyist for the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition and a firearm instructor, said in their initial complaint that the attorney general's office denied all seven of their applications in 2021 for an 'unrestricted' firearm permit, allowing both open and concealed carry. Court documents show that the attorney general's office denied their permits because all of them had been granted 'restricted' permits, which only allowed concealed carry. Smith said in his ruling that unrestricted permits 'are a privilege and there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in obtaining one.' The plaintiffs had hoped for a similar ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, where the justices struck down a New York state law that had restricted who could obtain a permit to carry a gun in public. Similar to Rhode Island, New York's law had required residents to show an actual need to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense. Yet, notably, Smith said in his ruling that the high court's 2022 ruling did not declare that the Second Amendment 'requires open carry,' but even if it did, Rhode Island's law 'is within the Nation's historical tradition of regulation.' Frank Saccoccio, the attorney representing the gun owners, said in an email Monday that they did not believe Smith's decision was in line with the 2022 SCOTUS decision and would be appealing. An email seeking comment from the attorney general was sent on Monday.
