EPA poised to scrap landmark finding that will limit its battle against climate change
The agency is considering scrapping a 2009 scientific 'endangerment finding' that confirmed greenhouse gases from the oil and gas industry, and other sources, endangered people's health, so there was reason to regulate them under the 1970 Clean Air Act.
'On Monday, June 30, 2025, EPA sent over its 'Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards' proposal to the Office of Management and Budget, which was originally announced on March 12, 2025,' an EPA spokesperson told The Independent, in an email Wednesday. 'The proposal will be published for public notice and comment once it has completed interagency review and been signed by the Administrator.'
EPA did not respond to The Independent's questions regarding the potential impacts of a rollback. But if the 2009 finding is rescinded, it would erase EPA limits on greenhouse gas pollution across industries, adding to dozens of rollbacks in federal climate and environmental policy by the Trump administration.
Over the past 15 years, the endangerment finding has helped to reduce climate pollution and protect Americans' health, bolstering limits on power plants and emissions standards for trucks and other vehicles. If rolled back, limits on tailpipe emissions would be overturned and automakers could make cars that guzzle more gas.
Climate scientists and activists said tossing the 2009 ruling would throttle the U.S.'s ability to prevent the worst outcomes of climate change, and would endanger people around the world in the name of the Trump administration's push for energy dominance.
"If you're busily committing a crime, it's smart to try and change the law so that it's not technically a crime any more,' author and Third Act founder Bill McKibben said, on the proposal. 'Big Oil is not content to merely wreck the future, they'd like to alter the past as well."
The EPA proposal is still in draft form, sources told The New York Times , so could be changed.
But if it is finalized, legal challenges would almost certainly follow although those could take a year, said Dr. Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the California Institute for Water Resources.
'But, if this ultimately comes to pass, the consequences will be stark: it essentially would halt all federal actions to regulate heat-trapping and climate change-causing greenhouse gases as a pollutant. That would mark a grim milestone, indeed,' Swain told The Independent.
Dr. Michael E. Mann, the director of the Center for Science, Sustainability, & the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, had warned of an attack on the 'endangerment finding' a year ago.
'The United States, and a small number of petrostates including Russia and Saudi Arabia, now pose a major threat to the planet. The rest of the world will need to decide what to do about that,' he told The Independent, in an email Wednesday.
Earlier this year, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said that the agency would reconsider the 2009 finding in what he deemed the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.'
'The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas,' he said.
'We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.'
Under Zeldin, the EPA announced it would shutter its Office of Research and Development, which provides expertise for environmental policy and regulation, and analyzes the dangers of climate change and pollution. The agency is also expected to shed thousands of employees, including chemists, biologists, and toxicologists.
The U.S. has produced more greenhouse gas emissions than any country in human history.
Countries are failing to cut their greenhouse gas emissions at a fast enough rate, and temperatures around the world are hitting unprecedented highs. As the planet continues to heat up, extreme weather events will become more severe, the threat of famine and plague rockets, and more species face extinction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
19 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
9th Circuit keeps freeze on Southern California ICE patrols
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a stinging blow to the Trump administration's mass deportation project Friday night in a fiery opinion upholding a lower court's block on 'roving patrols' across much of Southern California. 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the panel wrote. The ruling leaves in place a temporary restraining order barring masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Southern California without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally. Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles wrote in her original order. 9th Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Jennifer Sung and Ronald M. Gould agreed. 'There is no predicate action that the individual plaintiffs would need to take, other than simply going about their lives, to potentially be subject to the challenged stops,' the opinion said. Fourth Amendment injunctions are hard to win, experts say. Plaintiffs must show not only that they were hurt, but that they are likely to be hurt again in the same way in the future. One way to meet that test in court is to show the injury is the product of a government policy. Throughout a hearing Monday, the appellate judges repeatedly probed that question, roughly doubling the administration's time to respond in an effort to get an answer. 'After the district court injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said, 'We are going to continue doing what we're doing' — so that's not a policy?' Berzon asked. 'The policy is to follow the 4th Amendment and to require reasonable suspicion,' said Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov Roth. Roth also rebuffed questions about a 3,000-arrests-per-day quota first touted by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May. In a memo to the panel on Wednesday, Roth clarified that 'no such goal' had been established. The court rejected that argument Friday, writing that 'no official statement or express policy is required' to prove one exists. 'Agents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks ... some repeatedly in the same location,' the opinion said, making the likelihood of future stops 'considerable.' The ruling scolded the Department of Justice for 'misreading' the restraining order it sought to block, and said it 'mischaracterized' Judge Frimpong's order. And it rejected the government's central claim that its law enforcement mandate would be 'chilled' by the district court's order. 'Defendants have failed to establish that they will be 'chilled' from their enforcement efforts at all, let alone in a manner that constitutes the 'irreparable injury' required to support a stay pending appeal,' the panel wrote. The case is still in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction in September. But the 'shock and awe' campaign of chaotic public arrests that first gripped Southern California on June 6 has all but ceased in the seven counties covered by Frimpong's order: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. 'The underlying 4th Amendment law is not complicated,' said Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California — part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. 'Even a more conservative panel would have been concerned about what the government is doing.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, whose city was among a number of Southern California municipalities allowed to join the lawsuit this week, celebrated the news. 'Today is a victory for the rule of law and for the city of Los Angeles,' Bass said. 'Los Angeles will stand together against this administration's efforts to break up families who contribute every single day to the life, the culture and the economy of our great city.' The Trump administration has previously signaled its intent to fight judicial limits on its deportation efforts any way it can. It was not immediately clear where an appeal would proceed.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' ___
an hour ago
It's Trump's economy now. The latest financial numbers offer some warning signs
WASHINGTON -- For all of President Donald Trump's promises of an economic 'golden age,' a spate of weak indicators this week told a potentially worrisome story as the impacts of his policies are coming into focus. Job gains are dwindling. Inflation is ticking upward. Growth has slowed compared to last year. More than six months into his term, Trump's blitz of tariff hikes and his new tax and spending bill have remodeled America's trading, manufacturing, energy and tax systems to his own liking. He's eager to take credit for any wins that might occur and is hunting for someone else to blame if the financial situation starts to totter. But as of now, this is not the boom the Republican president promised, and his ability to blame his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, for any economic challenges has faded as the world economy hangs on his every word and social media post. When Friday's jobs report turned out to be decidedly bleak, Trump ignored the warnings in the data and fired the head of the agency that produces the monthly jobs figures. 'Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes,' Trump said on Truth Social, without offering evidence for his claim. 'The Economy is BOOMING.' It's possible that the disappointing numbers are growing pains from the rapid transformation caused by Trump and that stronger growth will return — or they may be a preview of even more disruption to come. Trump's aggressive use of tariffs, executive actions, spending cuts and tax code changes carries significant political risk if he is unable to deliver middle-class prosperity. The effects of his new tariffs are still several months away from rippling through the economy, right as many Trump allies in Congress will be campaigning in the midterm elections. 'Considering how early we are in his term, Trump's had an unusually big impact on the economy already,' said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist at Firehouse Strategies. 'The full inflationary impact of the tariffs won't be felt until 2026. Unfortunately for Republicans, that's also an election year.' The White House portrayed the blitz of trade frameworks leading up to Thursday's tariff announcement as proof of his negotiating prowess. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and other nations that the White House declined to name agreed that the U.S. could increase its tariffs on their goods without doing the same to American products. Trump simply set rates on other countries that lacked settlements. The costs of those tariffs — taxes paid on imports to the U.S. — will be most felt by many Americans in the form of higher prices, but to what extent remains uncertain. 'For the White House and their allies, a key part of managing the expectations and politics of the Trump economy is maintaining vigilance when it comes to public perceptions,' said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. Just 38% of adults approve of Trump's handling of the economy, according to a July poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. That's down from the end of Trump's first term when half of adults approved of his economic leadership. The White House paints a rosier image, seeing the economy emerging from a period of uncertainty after Trump's restructuring and repeating the economic gains seen in his first term before the pandemic struck. 'President Trump is implementing the very same policy mix of deregulation, fairer trade, and pro-growth tax cuts at an even bigger scale – as these policies take effect, the best is yet to come,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. The economic numbers over the past week show the difficulties that Trump might face if the numbers continue on their current path: — Friday's jobs report showed that U.S. employers have shed 37,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump's tariff launch in April, undermining prior White House claims of a factory revival. — Net hiring has plummeted over the past three months with job gains of just 73,000 in July, 14,000 in June and 19,000 in May — a combined 258,000 jobs lower than previously indicated. On average last year, the economy added 168,000 jobs a month. — A Thursday inflation report showed that prices have risen 2.6% over the year that ended in June, an increase in the personal consumption expenditures price index from 2.2% in April. Prices of heavily imported items, such as appliances, furniture, and toys and games, jumped from May to June. — On Wednesday, a report on gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the U.S. economy — showed that it grew at an annual rate of less than 1.3% during the first half of the year, down sharply from 2.8% growth last year. 'The economy's just kind of slogging forward,' said Guy Berger, senior fellow at the Burning Glass Institute, which studies employment trends. 'Yes, the unemployment rate's not going up, but we're adding very few jobs. The economy's been growing very slowly. It just looks like a 'meh' economy is continuing.' Trump has sought to pin the blame for any economic troubles on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, saying the Fed should cut its benchmark interest rates even though doing so could generate more inflation. Trump has publicly backed two Fed governors, Christoper Waller and Michelle Bowman, for voting for rate cuts at Wednesday's meeting. But their logic is not what the president wants to hear: They were worried, in part, about a slowing job market. But this is a major economic gamble being undertaken by Trump and those pushing for lower rates under the belief that mortgages will also become more affordable as a result and boost homebuying activity. His tariff policy has changed repeatedly over the last six months, with the latest import tax numbers serving as a substitute for what the president announced in April, which provoked a stock market sell-off. It might not be a simple one-time adjustment as some Fed board members and Trump administration officials argue. Of course, Trump can't say no one warned him about the possible consequences of his economic policies. Biden, then the outgoing president, did just that in a speech last December at the Brookings Institution, saying the cost of the tariffs would eventually hit American workers and businesses. 'He seems determined to impose steep, universal tariffs on all imported goods brought into this country on the mistaken belief that foreign countries will bear the cost of those tariffs rather than the American consumer,' Biden said. 'I believe this approach is a major mistake.'
