In a confidential move, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recommended that the Trump administration reassess a critical scientific determination underpinning U.S. efforts to combat climate change.
According to four individuals familiar with the situation, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has advised a revision of the agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases, responsible for global warming, pose a threat to public health and welfare. This recommendation has not been publicly disclosed.
The 2009 determination is foundational under the Clean Air Act and supports various climate regulations concerning vehicles, power plants, and other sources of emissions. A spokesperson for the EPA refrained from commenting on Zeldin’s proposal following an executive order from President Donald Trump. This order, initiated on his first day in office, mandated a report on the validity and relevance of the endangerment finding.
Reports indicate that Zeldin encouraged the White House to nullify this finding. Critics of conventional climate science, like Steve Milloy, a former Trump adviser, dismiss the 2009 finding as the core of U.S. climate policies, which he disparages as a “climate hoax.”
Milloy argues that nullifying the finding would dismantle the EPA’s climate-related functions. Meanwhile, during a Cabinet meeting, Trump stated that Zeldin had plans to significantly reduce the EPA workforce, attributing the action to inefficiencies and obstructionism under previous administrations.
Former Trump adviser Myron Ebell, a skeptic of climate science, expressed optimism about Zeldin’s suggestion, viewing it as a significant step against regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental advocates, however, see such an attempt as largely futile due to the extensive scientific consensus and legal precedents upholding the endangerment finding.
David Doniger, from the Natural Resources Defense Council, characterized efforts to overturn the finding as misguided and unlikely to succeed in court. Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly criticized climate initiatives, branding them misleading and economically harmful.
Peter Zalzal from the Environmental Defense Fund condemned the reconsideration of the finding, highlighting the urgency of addressing climate impacts already being felt nationally and globally. The move is seen as consistent with Project 2025, a plan advocating for significant policy shifts in various domains, including environmental regulations.
Zeldin, previously a congressman with minimal environmental experience, was a controversial choice for the EPA leadership. His stance was evident during a contentious confirmation hearing where he debated the implications of a landmark Supreme Court decision authorizing EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.
UCLA professor Ann Carlson warns that rescinding the endangerment finding would exacerbate the environmental challenges already facing the planet due to rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and other climate impacts observed worldwide.
Climate scientists, including Michael Mann, criticize the EPA’s recent actions as another manifestation of climate change denial within certain political circles. The scientific consensus overwhelmingly identifies greenhouse gases as a present and escalating threat.
Experts like Princeton’s Michael Oppenheimer describe the denial of this reality as fantastical, ignoring the demonstrable disruptions already being experienced due to climate change. Without addressing these pollutants, a significant risk remains to public health and global stability.
