‘It comes down to who you’re voting for’: EPA rescinds Endangerment Finding

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding on Feb. 12. This scientific determination provided the basis for federal regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by establishing that these pollutants are harmful to human health.

“You could characterize [the Endangerment Finding] as a determination that climate pollution endangers public health and welfare,” said Alexandra Amonette, Montana’s Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) state print media coordinator. 

The Endangerment Finding required that climate emissions be regulated under the Clean Air Act, according to CCL Research Manager Dana Nuccitelli. The new interpretation only requires the EPA to regulate local pollutants — not indirect impacts from global pollutants such as GHG emissions, he said. 

On Wednesday, Feb. 18, the EPA repealed GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, marking the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history, according to its website. This decision comes after the EPA's determination that without the Endangerment Finding the organization lacks the authority to regulate vehicle emissions. 

“As a result of these changes, engine and vehicle manufacturers no longer have any future obligations for the measurement, control and reporting of GHG emissions for any highway engine and vehicle,” the EPA wrote in a statement on its website.

According to Nuccitelli, if the courts affirm the rescission, Congress would have to amend the Clean Air Act or pass a new law enabling the EPA to regulate climate pollution from GHGs again. 

CCL is a nonprofit focused on federal climate solutions, according to Amonette. She said that it emphasizes a respectful, nonpartisan approach that can lay a sustainable foundation for climate action. 

According to Amonette, implications of the rescission could be broader than vehicle emissions. “[The finding] has served as the framework for federal regulations based on emissions from vehicles, power plants and industry,” she said. Without the Endangerment Finding, the EPA lacks clear authority to regulate emissions from these sources, she said. 

According to Nuccitelli, revising regulations is much easier than undoing laws enacted by Congress, because such laws can be undone only by a majority vote. 

“That’s a high bar to clear, especially when a law is passed on a bipartisan basis,” he said. “Regulations, on the other hand, can be revised by agencies whenever they decide they can justify doing so, which often happens when a new party takes control of the White House.”

Nuccitelli said that regulatory instability creates significant uncertainty for businesses and can make it difficult for the federal government to reduce emissions. 

The rescission has already spurred lawsuits against the EPA, Amonette said. On Feb. 18, a diverse coalition of health and environmental protection groups sued the EPA over the ruling, according to the Environmental Defense Fund. 

Nuccitelli said that issues with the EPA’s rescission will likely reach the Supreme Court.  

“The court will have to decide if the Clean Air Act can apply to indirect effects from climate pollutants that are mixed throughout the atmosphere, and whether the climate change contribution from American vehicles is enough to warrant regulation,” he said. 

According to MSU political science professor and climate change researcher Paul Lachapelle, these cases could now be tied up in court for years. “These kinds of decisions, which were considered settled case law, are now being redetermined,”  he said. 

For environmental protection groups like CCL, these types of changes underscore the importance of establishing protections on climate policy that can endure even as federal leadership changes. 

“So you have these EPA regulations, and they swing back and forth every time a new political party takes control,” Amonette said. “If you can get a law passed in Congress, it's durable. It can't be revoked by whoever is controlling the White House.” 

Amonette said that laws passed in Congress are important because they represent the American people. Because of this, CCL lobbies to pass climate protection policy in Congress.

“[CCL] has a lot of accomplishments where we've gotten laws passed by both sides of the House and both sides of the Senate, and that's durable. They're binding laws,” Amonette said. 

According to Lachapelle, industry pressure is one reason why decisions like this are made. “I think what you’re seeing is doing this for the short-term profits of a small group of corporate interests and industry,” Lachapelle said.

According to him, this decision undermines the long-term health and welfare of the global population and environment.

Some MSU students also expressed worry that climate action is being sidelined in favor of industry and economic interests.

“In my mind, what [the rescission] does is give these companies more power so they can make money and not protect the environment,” said conservation biology junior Joseph Hammell. 

“I feel as though it’s a step back in terms of climate action,” said mechanical engineering senior Harper Norsen. “It’s allowing for reduced limits on tailpipe emissions so the tippy-top can make a little more money.” 

To Norsen, this recent EPA decision demonstrates the partisanship of climate policy. 

“This type of finding being overturned — that was a political choice,” he said. “So it comes down to who you’re voting for, and that can change how we, as a country, fight climate change.”

Hammell said that the partisan divide over climate issues has made them difficult to discuss in class. 

“I don't even hear about this in my classes as much as I wish. I think maybe people want to avoid the politics, which is kind of a shame,” he said. “[Climate change has] just gotten grouped into that politics thing, which it shouldn't be.” 

The rescission has raised questions for Norsen about the future of climate policy. 

“Are we just going to continue on that path? Obviously, we’re experiencing a real thing, especially this winter,” he said. “Can we actually make an act towards decreasing our carbon footprint, or is this the new normal?”

Lachapelle said that while the U.S. is no longer seen as a world leader on the issue of climate change, it still has a responsibility to combat it. The U.S. has released more CO2 than any other country, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

“As the largest cumulative emitter of [CO2] emissions, I think we have a responsibility,” Lachapelle said.

He said deregulation is a predictable part of conservative governments, and the Trump administration is no exception.

“I mean, there's been no surprise and no secret about what the Trump administration was going to attempt to do with Project 2025,” he said. Project 2025 suggested significant federal reforms to reduce regulatory burdens, according to UC Berkeley Law.

Additionally, Lachapelle said that official estimates for global temperature increases — another measure of climate health — are likely too conservative. The UN estimates global warming projections over this century to be 2.3 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, according to its 2025 Emissions Gap Report.

Lachapelle said this number could actually be up to three or four degrees Celsius. “That is a fundamentally different world than what we know right now, a very unstable world, a world that is likely devoid of coral reefs and Arctic ice and a world that I wouldn't want to live in,” he said.

Nuccitelli said that we are already seeing impacts of the climate crisis with worsening extreme weather events. “Increased climate pollution will worsen the climate crisis at a time when we need to be doing everything we can to reduce emissions as fast as possible,” he said.

arTo learn more about CCL, visit its website at https://www.citizensclimatemt.org/.