Riccardo Liguori The EPA’s proposed rescindment of the Endangerment Finding would eliminate crucial climate regulations, undermining efforts to curb global warming. Experts warn of its severe implications for public health and the environment.
@Reuters
On July 29th, at a truck dealership in Indiana, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced what could be the most significant setback in U.S. climate policy: a proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding, the formal conclusion that greenhouse gases pose a public health threat. If approved, this move would strip much of the current environmental regulations of their meaning.
What is the endangerment finding and why does it matter?
The Endangerment Finding, first issued in 2009 under the Obama administration and supported by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, recognized that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases threaten human well-being. This finding serves as the legal foundation allowing the EPA to regulate emissions from key sectors, including transportation, industry, and energy production.
Trump’s strategy: “drill, baby, drill”
Behind the proposal lies a clear agenda: deregulation aimed at boosting fossil fuel production. The initiative aligns with the broader “drill, baby, drill” plan promoted by the Trump administration to encourage oil and gas extraction.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated that repealing the rule would be “the largest deregulation action in U.S. history.” However, the legal and scientific arguments supporting this proposal are contentious. According to Zeldin, the Clean Air Act (the primary U.S. federal law concerning air quality) would only allow regulation of pollution with local impacts, not global ones.
This stance has been criticized by experts such as Zealan Hoover, a former EPA advisor, who told The Guardian, “The Clean Air Act mandates the regulation of any air pollution that could reasonably endanger public health.”
An attack on climate science
The U.S. Department of Energy supported the proposal with a 150-page report that questions the scientific consensus on climate change, suggesting that carbon could have positive effects on agriculture and that extreme cold would be more dangerous than heat. Many climatologists have criticized these claims as misleading, arguing they ignore well-established scientific literature.
According to former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the current political and legal landscape is more favorable for such a repeal than it has been in the past, especially with a Supreme Court that now holds a solid conservative majority.
Real-world consequences: a decades-long setback
Without the Endangerment Finding, the EPA would lose its authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The sectors most affected would be transportation (responsible for 29% of U.S. emissions) and energy production (23%). Heavy industry, cement, and chemicals could also face fewer restrictions, rendering efforts to keep global warming below 1.5°C virtually futile.
Abigail Dillen of Earthjustice remarked that the EPA’s proposal sends a clear message: “To industries: pollute more. To those suffering from climate disasters: you are on your own.”
Potential countermeasures
The proposal is currently under a 45-day public consultation period. Once finalized, legal challenges are expected, possibly reaching the Supreme Court. The outcome of these cases, however, is uncertain. Michael Gerrard from Columbia Law School noted, “The Supreme Court has already made decisions that have weakened environmental regulation.”
Ironically, the removal of the EPA’s regulatory authority could also harm oil companies, which had previously argued in civil lawsuits that only the EPA could manage emissions. Without this shield, they could face multi-million-dollar lawsuits from cities and states for climate damage.
What remains of U.S. climate policy?
Although some regulations may survive — such as the bipartisan 2020 law on hydrofluorocarbon reduction — revoking the Endangerment Finding would mark a profound scaling back of federal climate action.
With the world dangerously close to exceeding the critical 1.5°C threshold and extreme weather events becoming more frequent, the EPA’s proposal represents more than just a legal or bureaucratic dispute. It’s a battle for the future of the fight against climate change.
As a group of climatologists wrote in an open letter in AGU Advances (June 2025), “Sixteen years later, the scientific evidence supporting the finding of endangerment is even stronger. And there is no credible counter-evidence.”
