The rest of America should rejoice that the reversal reflects legal, economic, health and welfare reality
The US Environmental Protection Agency has finally rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF) – the Obama-era EPA ruling that claimed carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” (GHG) emissions “endanger” human health and welfare. Within minutes, climate alarmists challenged it in court.
The action follows an extensive review of scientific evidence, legal and constitutional principles, and 572,000 public comments (534,000 via mass comment campaigns).
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called it “the single largest deregulatory action in US history.” Just eliminating federal GHG emission standards for vehicles (model years 2012–2027 and beyond) will save American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion, EPA estimates. They will no longer have to pay for measuring, reporting, certifying and complying with federal GHG vehicle emission standards.
EPA had attached endangerment tailpipe emission standards to impossible-to-meet 50.4 mpg fuel economy requirements – effectively banning internal combustion engines and forcing people to buy electric models. Now, motorists can buy the cars and light trucks they choose.
Scrapping the hated automatic stop/start “feature” will save consumers $2,400 per vehicle – and hopefully let us have repair shops disable it. Anyone who’s tried to merge into moving traffic from even a brief stop knows how maddening and dangerous this gimmick is.
Future actions will likely eradicate endangerment diktats on coal and gas power plants that generate electricity for the grid. That will keep electricity costs affordable and ensure we have power when we need it: for lights, heat, AC, refrigerators, stoves, computers, entertainment, hospitals, schools, shops, offices, traffic lights, data centers and banking – not just on average days, but during winter storms and summer heatwaves. No Net Zero wind-solar-battery system yet devised can do that, at any price.
The Endangerment reversal generated predictable howls of outrage from factions with economic or ideological stakes in the Obama ruling and tomes of regulations promulgated in its wake. They’ll no longer be able to dictate energy, economic and consumer choices. The rest of us should rejoice.
The EF originated with Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The US Supreme Court said EPA could regulate GHGs if the agency found that they “cause or contribute” to “air pollution” that may be “reasonably anticipated” to “endanger public health or welfare” by causing dangerous climate and weather changes.
The Obama EPA twisted and tortured science, history and common sense to fit the Court ruling and promulgated the Endangerment decree. Officially, the 2007 ruling has not been reversed.
However, the Trump EPA’s extensive final rule rescinding the EF demonstrates that Mass v EPA has effectively been reversed – and certainly rendered irrelevant by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, evidence-based science and international reality.
Legal and constitutional rulings torpedo and sink the 2009 Endangerment dreadnaught.
In West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the Court ruled that federal agencies may not violate the “major questions doctrine,” which states that, in the absence of clear congressional direction or authorization, agencies may not make decisions or issue regulations “of vast economic and political significance.”
The Clean Air Act (CAA) does not include life-giving carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It provides no legislative language or other authorization for EPA to unilaterally declare that CO2 is a pollutant that would somehow “endanger public health or welfare” by causing or contributing to climate disruptions.
EPA nevertheless did precisely that – and used the Endangerment declaration to give itself effective control over the nation’s transportation, electricity generation, petrochemical and other industries; its economy, employment and living standards. EF regulations have impacts of undeniably “vast economic and political significance,” making them impermissible and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) restricted the EPA’s discretion and assertion of power even further. That case overturned the Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. NRDC and ended judicial deference to government agencies (the “Chevron doctrine”). Bureaucrats may no longer devise self-proclaimed “reasonable interpretations” of unclear statutory language if those interpretations would significantly expand regulatory powers or inflate private sector costs.
EPA’s Endangerment Finding doesn’t have a legal or constitutional leg to stand on.
Evidence-based science gives EPA no foundation for declaring CO2 a dangerous pollutant.
Unlike pollutants listed in the CAA, carbon dioxide is nontoxic. Indeed, it is essential to planetary life. Humans and animals exhale it when they breathe; plants absorb CO2 during photosynthesis and emit oxygen. More atmospheric CO2 helps plants grow better, faster and with less water.
Endangerment proponents offer little more than baseless hair-raising assertions about climate calamities already upon us … and future catastrophes predicted by computer models based on GHGs controlling Earth’s climate. It’s Monty Python in Search of the Holy Grail of climate control – and ultimately control of American and world economies and living standards.
But as EPA’s new analysis, thousands of scientists, and reams of data and evidence demonstrate, this fearmongering does not reflect planetary reality. Average global temperatures have increased only slightly in 100 years; many US temperature records set in the 1930s still stand; and many alleged recent historic highs were recorded at airports and urban areas (heat islands).
Hurricane frequency and intensity likewise show minimal change since 1865; no Category 3-5 hurricanes struck the USA for a record twelve years, 10/2005–08/2017; and tornado frequency and intensity have actually declined since 1950.
There is no real-world evidence that CO2 or other GHGs have replaced the complex solar, cosmic and other natural forces that have brought numerous climate fluctuations throughout Earth's history.
Even total US elimination of fossil fuels would be a multi-trillion-dollar lesson in futility.
China emits one-third of global greenhouse gases, more than all developed nations combined. India and Indonesia add another tenth. They’re building new coal-fired power plants every month to raise their people’s living standards and become global powers.
In still-destitute countries, 750 million people have no access to electricity. Billions more have minimal, sporadic access. They are also constructing coal and gas power plants, industrializing, driving cars – and emitting GHGs at ever-increasing rates. US emissions are irrelevant.
The real dangers to our health and welfare come from eliminating fossil fuels.
Wind and solar power were de minimis during Winter Storm Fern. So was New England’s expected Canadian electricity. Coal, gas and nuclear power came to the rescue. Without them, thousands of lives would likely have been lost.
Oil, natural gas and coal still provide over 80 percent of total US primary energy consumption – plus irreplaceable feedstocks for more than 6,000 medical, pharmaceutical, communication, construction, transportation and other products. Without fossil fuels, our lives would revert to 1900 or earlier.
Any actual endangerment to our health and welfare does not arise from using fossil fuels, and possibly adding a smidgeon to adverse (or beneficial) climate and weather changes. It comes from eliminating fossil fuels, relying on “renewable” energy that’s missing when most needed, and denying humanity thousands of essential petrochemical products.
There is no basis for the DC Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court to do anything but affirm the Trump-Zeldin reversal of the ignominious, destructive Obama Era Endangerment Finding.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, economic development and human rights.