Latest news with #LeeZeldin
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- Automotive
- USA Today
Repealing greenhouse gas emissions rule could cost American drivers more, not less
Repealing emission standard for new cars could save Americans money — if gas prices drop. Ending greenhouse gas emissions standards for new cars is supposed to result in more 'affordable choices' for consumers and 'regulatory relief' for companies, according to a statement from the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet, the agency's draft impact analysis shows the proposal might instead cost the country more than it would save. It depends on what is counted and assumptions about the broader economy. 'They're trying to cook the books to show that somehow what they're doing saves costs,' Joseph Goffman, a former assistant administrator at the EPA office overseeing air pollution rules, said in an interview. A spokesperson for the agency agreed that some of the modeled scenarios were 'highly speculative' but said they are designed to show the influence of market conditions, like gas prices. One estimate showed repealing emissions standards would cost the country $350 billion a year. Another predicting ideal economic conditions showed annual savings of $490 billion. Neither of those figures included the cost of public health impacts from air pollution. Initial details of the proposal to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding were announced Tuesday by Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. 'With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,' Zeldin said at an Indiana auto dealership, calling greenhouse gas rules 'the real threat to Americans' livelihoods.' Dropping emissions standards for new vehicles is one effect of the agency's plan to repeal the 'endangerment finding,' which underpins the federal government's ability to regulate the greenhouse gases that fuel climate change. In 2009, the agency under former President Barack Obama detailed evidence that greenhouse gases, including those emitted by cars, harm human health. Last year, President Joe Biden's administration set rules to reduce the release of these heat-trapping gases as well as other air pollutants. Widely touted economic benefits of $99 billion per year included reduced public health costs from cleaner air along with reduced fuel and maintenance costs. More: Trump EPA reverses pollution limits on power plants How are the costs and benefits calculated? To understand the economic impact of the proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency modeled several different scenarios in a draft report. Some include changing more government policies than others. Some rely on economic factors beyond the government's direct control. For instance, one projection estimates repealing the endangerment finding and the car emissions standard for greenhouse gases would have a net cost of $350 billion for the nation. That scenario includes ending tax credits for new electric cars created by the Inflation Reduction Act. Other projections show that the repeal would result in overall savings once a gallon of gasoline becomes a dollar cheaper than previously forecasted. Goffman suggested that 'an unrealistically low price for gasoline' was the only way the Trump administration could show the plan had broad economic benefits. An EPA spokesperson told USA TODAY: 'These values are illustrative and show the sensitivity of future gas savings based on different fuel prices. Many actions that can impact gas prices in the future and basing the benefits on future gas prices is highly speculative.' Will cars be cheaper? When the Biden administration announced its car pollution standards in 2024, the EPA explained how the rule could change the cost of new cars as part of its an 800-page analysis. Purchase prices were projected to increase, ranging from about $900 for a sedan to $2,600 for an SUV. But the agency said consumers would save money in the long run because of cheaper maintenance and fuel savings over the vehicle's lifetime. For example, sedan and SUV drivers would save $4,400. The savings projected under Biden were even larger after including purchase incentives in the calculations. But those will be eliminated as a result of cuts in Trump's "Big Beautifull Bill" that was approved by Congress weeks ago. For instance, people who buy new electric cars soon will lose access to $7,500 in tax credits. The draft analysis of the new proposal is much shorter – just 63 pages – and does not project changes in the cost of new cars. Instead, it estimated nationwide impacts. Trump administration officials have touted $54 billion in annual savings for Americans. An EPA spokesperson clarified that figure included benefits from expected new vehicle technology but did not include costs such as long-term maintenance. Adding those leads to a net cost increase of $18 billion per year. How will the repeal affect public health spending? When Biden's administration set car emissions standards last year, a report calculated it would save the nation $13 billion annually in public health spending by reducing the amount of fine particulate matter released in the air. This pollution is associated with premature deaths and hospitalizations from respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. That report also estimated that limiting greenhouse gas emissions would bring $72 billion climate benefits annually. This was calculated from the social cost of carbon, a measure that considers things like human health effects, agricultural productivity and property damage from natural disasters. The repeal proposed by Zeldin would keep the particle pollution limits, however, it would remove standards for greenhouse gas emissions. The new estimates did not include the impacts, like public health, of increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Future of climate change regulation beyond cars Goffman, the former EPA official, said repealing the endangerment finding has impacts beyond car emissions. Its repeal could limit the federal government's power to regulate all greenhouse gas emissions and make future attempts to tackle climate change harder. 'This goes beyond an individual administration exercising discretion that can be reversed by a future administration,' Goffman said. 'They've taken themselves out on the legal ledge, and it's only a couple of millimeters wide.' This proposed repeal is part of a larger movement from the Trump EPA. In June, Zeldin announced intent to remove and scale down air pollution limits on power plants. In that news release, the agency said it would save the power sector about $1.2 billion dollars annually in regulatory costs. It didn't mention that their cost-benefit analysis found it would also cost $8 billion dollars annually from worsened public health. That means a net negative from easing those pollution limits: While companies save money, people would spend more because of poorer health. Electricity generation and transportation are the two biggest greenhouse gas emitting sectors. Together they make up over half of emissions in the country. The plans to scale back limits on power plants and new cars could have significant influence on global efforts to avoid climate change impacts. 'Trump's EPA is trying every trick in the book to deny and avoid their mission to protect people and the environment,' wrote Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator who now leads the advocacy group, America Is All In. 'Instead of doing their job, this EPA is putting the safety of our loved ones at risk.' Written comments from the public about the repeal proposal can be submitted until Sept. 15. The agency also plans to hold public hearing sessions next month. More details can be found on the agency's website.
Gizmodo
23 minutes ago
- Automotive
- Gizmodo
Trump's EPA Wants to Pretend That Greenhouse Gases Aren't a Threat to Human Health
In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 'endangerment finding' empowered the U.S. to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. This scientific and legal determination ruled that planet-warming gases such as carbon dioxide are dangerous to human health and welfare. Now, the Trump administration has moved to rescind that finding. At an auto dealership in Indiana on Tuesday, July 29, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin unveiled the agency's proposal to repeal the finding. The EPA claims this move would save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the elimination of all greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles and engines, including Biden's electric vehicle mandate. The rollback marks the most aggressive attempt by President Donald Trump to unravel federal restrictions on fossil fuels. Zeldin called it the 'largest deregulatory action in the history of America' on Tuesday, the Associated Press reports. 'With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end 16 years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,' Zeldin said, according to an agency release. Scientists, climate advocates, environmental policy experts, and former EPA leaders warn the repeal would have severe consequences for American health, well-being, and the climate. 'Abandoning all efforts to address climate change is not in the best interest of anyone but the fossil fuel industry, which has made trillions of dollars over the last 50 years and has shown that if unchecked, it will pursue profits at any cost, even if that destroys the American way of life,' Shannon Baker-Branstetter, senior director of domestic climate at the Center for American Progress, said in a statement. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate any air pollutant that endangers public health or welfare. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are subject to this mandate. Two years later, the endangerment finding determined that current and projected atmospheric concentrations of six key greenhouse gases 'threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.' The simultaneously issued 'cause or contribute finding' pointed to motor vehicles and engines as major sources of hazardous greenhouse gas emissions. These determinations serve as the legal basis for the EPA to regulate planet-warming pollution. In the 16 years since the agency issued the endangerment finding, scientists have found overwhelming evidence to show that greenhouse gases endanger public health and drive global warming. Even under EPA regulation, emissions have led to deadly consequences for countless Americans, driving more frequent and intense extreme weather events and worsening air quality. Despite this, conservatives and some congressional Republicans have argued that the real threat is overregulation and hidden taxes. In March, Zeldin announced a formal reconsideration of the endangerment finding on the grounds that the EPA failed to consider the regulatory fallout back in 2009. That move was part of a series of environmental rollbacks that aimed to eliminate 31 regulations on clean air, clean water, climate change, and more, according to the AP. Trump set the precedent for these actions with a day-one executive order to drastically scale back environmental regulations, which also demanded the EPA submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. Now, Zeldin aims to 'undo the underpinning of $1 trillion in costly regulations' by revoking the finding altogether, according to the EPA release. The proposal must go through a lengthy review process, including public comment, before it's finalized. Environmental groups have voiced strong opposition to the decision and vowed to fight it, including the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 'The EPA wants to shirk its responsibility to protect us from climate pollution, but science and the law say otherwise,' Christy Goldfuss, executive director of the NRDC, said in a statement. 'NRDC's lawyers and scientists are not going to let that happen without a fight. If EPA finalizes this illegal and cynical approach, we will see them in court.'
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fox News Accidentally Exposes EPA Chief's Lies in Live Interview
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin has decided to pretend that the health risks caused by greenhouse gases don't exist—but the Fox News chyron beneath him told a different story. 'EPA is proposing to rescind the 2009 Obama EPA Endangerment Finding to eliminate all of the greenhouse gas emissions regulations that followed,' Zeldin said during an interview on Fox News Tuesday, 'including electric vehicle mandates, which amounts to a trillion dollars' worth of savings.' In December 2009, the EPA published an Endangerment Finding that stated that the current and projected concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.' Greenhouse gases trap outgoing infrared heat within the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in global warming. Just a few months ago, Zeldin couldn't even say whether carbon was a pollutant (spoiler alert, it is). Now he is primed to remove the finding that set the standard for multiple industries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. But as independent journalist Aaron Rupar pointed out on X, Zeldin's announcement was rendered immediately ridiculous by the chyron just beneath him. As the anti-science flunkie in charge of the EPA happily announced his plan to strip greenhouse gas regulations, an 'Extreme Heat' warning appeared in the bottom right corner. The chyron below him displayed the 'Hottest Temps Now' from different cities across the country: 102 degrees in Arizona; 100 degrees in Florida; 100 degrees in Georgia; 99 degrees in California. This week, a record-breaking heat wave struck the eastern United States, with excessive heat advisories being issued everywhere from Florida to New York. Over the last decade, heat-related deaths have doubled in the U.S. The Obama-era Endangerment Finding that Zeldin would like to repeal directly linked greenhouse gas emissions to widespread changes in extreme temperatures around the world—adding that rising temperatures would likely turn deadly. 'The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with increases in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public health endangerment finding,' the report stated, noting that 'heat is already the leading cause of weather related deaths in the United States.' Solve the daily Crossword
Miami Herald
6 hours ago
- Health
- Miami Herald
The Trump administration is gutting EPA's research arm. Can California bridge the gap?
In the wake of the Trump administration's decision to dismantle the research arm of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a robust if little-known California agency known as the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is poised to take on an even bigger role to bridge the gap. The EPA this month announced that it was eliminating nearly 4,000 employees as part of a cost-saving "reduction in force," the majority of which are staffers from its Office of Research and Development - whose research into environmental risks and hazards underpins nearly all EPA rules and regulations. The reduction will save the agency $748.8 million, officials said. "Under President Trump's leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback," read a statement from EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. "This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars." The ORD had been in operation since the EPA was established by President Richard Nixon in 1970 and was focused on conducting scientific research to help advance the EPA's goals of protecting human health and the environment. Experts said the decision to break up the research office sends a chilling signal for science and will leave more communities exposed to environmental hazards such as industrial chemicals, wildfire smoke and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances - or PFAs - in drinking water, all of which are subject to the department's analysis. "The people of this country are not well served by these actions," read a statement from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science. "They are left more vulnerable." It also shifts the onus onto California and other states to fill the void left by the federal government. ORD's research supported work around Superfund site cleanups and environmental disasters such as the Los Angeles wildfires or the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment. "There will be another East Palestine, another Exxon Valdez [oil spill] - some disaster will happen ... and those communities will be hurt when they don't have to be," said Tracey Woodruff, a professor at UC San Francisco and a former senior scientist and policy advisor with EPA's Office of Policy. The Golden State appears better positioned than many others carry on the work - particularly through the small but mighty department Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, located within the California Environmental Protection Agency. "California has for some time developed a pretty robust infrastructure of assessing the health harms of toxic chemicals and pollutants," Woodruff said. "So in that way, we're better off than almost any other state because we have such a stellar group of scientists." Indeed, California is known for some of its more rigorous health-based standards and regulations, such as the Proposition 65 warnings posted by businesses across the state to advise people of the presence of cancer-causing chemicals, which are overseen by OEHAA. By dismantling ORD, the EPA is further politicizing the independent science and research that underpins so many of the nation's regulations, said Yana Garcia, California's Secretary for Environmental Protection. While California remains dedicated to such science, she said other states may not be so lucky. "We will continue to keep the work of OEHHA strong and remain committed to it, but we're still getting a handle on what this loss really means," Garcia said. "It is a huge loss to California. It is an even bigger loss to so many other states that don't have an Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments like we do." Kris Thayer, OEHHA's director, came to agency from ORD, where she directed its IRIS program for identifying and characterizing the human health hazards of chemicals. She said the state is "absolutely going to be looking at every way that we can fill the void given our resources, but we are going to feel the pinch of this." "It's not only that the quantity of assessments will be reduced, but the credibility of the assessments will be reduced, because they will be developed by programs where there's a lot more opportunity for political interference in terms of the science that gets shaped," she said. Chemical industry and other anti-regulatory groups have lobbied for the EPA to limit ORD's influence. A January letter addressed to Zeldin spearheaded by the American Chemistry Council and 80 other organizations said risk assessments developed by ORD were "being used to develop overly burdensome regulations on critical chemistries essential for products we use every day." In particular, they cited the government's evaluation of chemicals including formaldehyde, inorganic arsenic and hexavalent chromium, which can be used or created by industrial processes. The groups charged the agency with a lack of impartiality and transparency, a slow process and limited peer review. Thayer noted that a lot of assessment work conducted by ORD is used in California. On the other hand, a number of states and EPA programs also look to California's assessments. "We're going to be monitoring how this unfolds, but we're certainly going to be looking to do everything we can to meet capacity - we're not going to be able to fully meet it - and recognizing that our work will not only impact California, but can be used by other states," she said. Garcia said California has hired a number of people from the federal government over the past year and is open to absorbing more EPA employees who were recently laid off. OEHHA has a number of open positions. "California remains open for [a] rigorous, science-based approach to health and environmental protections," Garcia said. Woodruff, of UCSF, said she hopes to see California and other states invest more in OEHAA and other scientific agencies by offering better salaries and bolstering staff numbers. But ultimately, she said the Golden State can use this moment to become an example for others to follow. "California could be a real leader for all the other states who also want to keep doing right by their by their constituents and continuing to address toxic chemical exposure," she said. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
CNN
9 hours ago
- Climate
- CNN
Backpedaling on pollution, meteor showers, world's first passenger jet: Catch up on the day's stories
👋 Welcome to 5 Things PM! Sky-gazers will get a good chance to see fireballs streaking across the night sky this week. Two meteor showers will reach their peak, and another is ramping up. Check out these tips on how to watch. Here's what else you might have missed during your busy day. In a significant policy reversal, the Trump administration wants to repeal a 2009 scientific finding that human-caused climate change endangers human health and safety. Speaking on a conservative podcast, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin referred to climate change as dogma rather than science. In Alaska's North Slope region — the northernmost county in the US — one small radio station keeps eight villages connected and serves about 10,000 people. KBRW relies on federal funding to stay afloat, but it may not survive because of President Donald Trump's public media cuts. Ukrainian swimmer Vladyslav Bukhov fled his hometown as a child in 2014, when Russia first invaded his country. Then came the 2022 attack. Forced to train in a war zone, Bukhov never thought he would become a world champion. Now he's trying to do it again. The world's first passenger jet — a luxurious British model that took off in 1952 — vanished from the skies after several deadly crashes. Aviation enthusiasts brought one back to life. People are waking up to a fresh fashion trend. Nightgowns — the sleepwear once strictly relegated to bedrooms and boudoirs — have become the summer dress of the year. get '5 things' in your inbox If your day doesn't start until you're up to speed on the latest headlines, then let us introduce you to your new favorite morning fix. Sign up here for the '5 Things' newsletter. 🌈 Something for everyone: Northampton, Massachusetts, has always been a haven for the LGBTQ community. CNN anchor Victor Blackwell discovered a welcoming vibe for visitors as he rode the region's bike trails, explored Smith College and kicked back at a coffee shop. NYPD sending teams to Las Vegas to search for motive in office tower shooting Ghislaine Maxwell offers to testify before Congress but with major conditions, including immunity China-US trade talks conclude without deal to prevent tariffs from surging again 📸 Pretty in pink: This stunning picture of a flock of roseate spoonbills soaring over a shark took the top prize in the 2025 Mangrove Photography Awards — but the serene image tells a bigger story. Discover why this moment was so rare, plus take a look at some of the other contenders. 📱Which country just overtook China as the biggest smartphone exporter to the US?A. JapanB. IndiaC. MexicoD. Brazil⬇️ Scroll down for the answer. 👋 We'll see you tomorrow.🧠 Quiz answer: B. India has overtaken China as the No. 1 exporter of smartphones to the US, following Apple's tariff-driven pivot to New Delhi.📧 Check out all of CNN's newsletters. Today's edition of 5 Things PM was edited and produced by CNN's Kimberly Richardson and Emily Scolnick.
