In its new rule eliminating the Endangerment Finding—an important pillar of US climate policy which enables regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has retreated from its botched attempt to cast doubt on climate science. The new rule also rescinds regulations in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
EPA’s initial attack on the Endangerment Finding relied heavily on shoddy scientific arguments taken from a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and written by a hand-picked set of climate “skeptics.” That report was thoroughly eviscerated on substance by the scientific community, and a judge ruled that the secretive process the DOE used to produce it was illegal. The DOE report is so thoroughly discredited that the EPA felt obliged to note in its final rule that it “is not relying on the report… for any aspect of this final action.” And, more generally, “EPA is not relying on new findings by the Administrator with respect to global climate change … as a basis for the rescission or repeals.”
Instead, EPA is leaning heavily on legal arguments to support its action. First, EPA argues that the Clean Air Act does not and never did apply to greenhouse gases. One tiny problem with this argument is that the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary in 2007, and that ruling–Massachusetts v. EPA–still stands. Second, EPA invokes the “major questions doctrine” to argue that an absence of clear direction from Congress implies that EPA lacks authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act. This ignores amendments (made by Congress) to the Clean Air Act that explicitly categorize greenhouse gases as air pollutants.
Finally, the EPA argues that regulation of vehicle emissions would be “futile” because these emissions make a relatively small contribution to climate change, hence regulation of these emissions would provide little relief. (This of course implicitly acknowledges that climate change is a problem). In fact, U.S. vehicle emissions are significant—about 2.5% of all global emissions. That may not sound like much, but it is similar to emissions from global aviation and from global shipping (each alone), and it is greater than emissions from all but the four highest-emitting nations. Furthermore, one can always justify doing nothing by slicing and dicing emissions sources into infinitesimal slivers and then arguing that none of them by itself is significant.
The modeling EPA presents to support the contention that regulating U.S. motor vehicle emissions would be “futile” assumes that these emissions will decline substantially over the rest of this century. It is surprising, not to mention ironic, that the EPA makes this assumption at the same time it is creating a regulatory environment where these emissions are likely to increase!
Finally, it is important to note that to establish endangerment, it is not necessary to prove that vehicle emissions per se are harmful, or by extension that regulating them (alone) would be substantially helpful. It is only necessary to establish that vehicle emissions contribute to a body of pollution (elevated greenhouse gas concentrations), which in total is harmful.
Clearly, the EPA is creating a pathway whereby the Supreme Court could overturn Massachusetts v. EPA–the decision that deemed that the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gases. By decreeing that the Clean Air Act does not apply to greenhouse gases, EPA is inviting litigation on that point, and they will certainly get it.
While this litigation grinds along (and maybe afterwards, depending on how it ends), what we will get is higher greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, more impacts of climate change (extreme weather, wildfire, sea level rise, etc.), and all of the health and economic consequences those things bring. We will also get more particulate pollution, more ozone pollution, and the associated increases in mortality, health impacts, and health care costs, as well as higher vehicle operating costs.
Finally, the EPA’s move powerfully signals abandonment of U.S. leadership on climate, which may make it easier for other nations also to scale back ambition. Australia, New Zealand, and others seem to be doing this. A notable exception is China, which is deploying renewable energy faster than any other country, and in fact is expected to add more renewable energy than all other nations combined. As a result, China’s emissions seem to have peaked in 2024, ahead of their self-imposed deadline of 2030. China is also developing a massive electric vehicle industry that’s poised to dominate global markets. EPA’s decision will only hasten the shift of the center of the global auto industry from Detroit to Shenzhen.
America’s unilateral retreat from leadership is an “own goal” which, in the language of the Clean Air Act, endangers the public health and welfare; it also ties us to obsolete technologies, and cedes leadership and competitive advantages to our largest geopolitical rival.
In its new rule eliminating the Endangerment Finding—an important pillar of US climate policy which enables regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has retreated from its botched attempt to cast doubt on climate science. The new rule also rescinds regulations in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
EPA’s initial attack on the Endangerment Finding relied heavily on shoddy scientific arguments taken from a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and written by a hand-picked set of climate “skeptics.” That report was thoroughly eviscerated on substance by the scientific community, and a judge ruled that the secretive process the DOE used to produce it was illegal. The DOE report is so thoroughly discredited that the EPA felt obliged to note in its final rule that it “is not relying on the report… for any aspect of this final action.” And, more generally, “EPA is not relying on new findings by the Administrator with respect to global climate change … as a basis for the rescission or repeals.”
Instead, EPA is leaning heavily on legal arguments to support its action. First, EPA argues that the Clean Air Act does not and never did apply to greenhouse gases. One tiny problem with this argument is that the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary in 2007, and that ruling–Massachusetts v. EPA–still stands. Second, EPA invokes the “major questions doctrine” to argue that an absence of clear direction from Congress implies that EPA lacks authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act. This ignores amendments (made by Congress) to the Clean Air Act that explicitly categorize greenhouse gases as air pollutants.
Finally, the EPA argues that regulation of vehicle emissions would be “futile” because these emissions make a relatively small contribution to climate change, hence regulation of these emissions would provide little relief. (This of course implicitly acknowledges that climate change is a problem). In fact, U.S. vehicle emissions are significant—about 2.5% of all global emissions. That may not sound like much, but it is similar to emissions from global aviation and from global shipping (each alone), and it is greater than emissions from all but the four highest-emitting nations. Furthermore, one can always justify doing nothing by slicing and dicing emissions sources into infinitesimal slivers and then arguing that none of them by itself is significant.
The modeling EPA presents to support the contention that regulating U.S. motor vehicle emissions would be “futile” assumes that these emissions will decline substantially over the rest of this century. It is surprising, not to mention ironic, that the EPA makes this assumption at the same time it is creating a regulatory environment where these emissions are likely to increase!
Finally, it is important to note that to establish endangerment, it is not necessary to prove that vehicle emissions per se are harmful, or by extension that regulating them (alone) would be substantially helpful. It is only necessary to establish that vehicle emissions contribute to a body of pollution (elevated greenhouse gas concentrations), which in total is harmful.
Clearly, the EPA is creating a pathway whereby the Supreme Court could overturn Massachusetts v. EPA–the decision that deemed that the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gases. By decreeing that the Clean Air Act does not apply to greenhouse gases, EPA is inviting litigation on that point, and they will certainly get it.
While this litigation grinds along (and maybe afterwards, depending on how it ends), what we will get is higher greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, more impacts of climate change (extreme weather, wildfire, sea level rise, etc.), and all of the health and economic consequences those things bring. We will also get more particulate pollution, more ozone pollution, and the associated increases in mortality, health impacts, and health care costs, as well as higher vehicle operating costs.
Finally, the EPA’s move powerfully signals abandonment of U.S. leadership on climate, which may make it easier for other nations also to scale back ambition. Australia, New Zealand, and others seem to be doing this. A notable exception is China, which is deploying renewable energy faster than any other country, and in fact is expected to add more renewable energy than all other nations combined. As a result, China’s emissions seem to have peaked in 2024, ahead of their self-imposed deadline of 2030. China is also developing a massive electric vehicle industry that’s poised to dominate global markets. EPA’s decision will only hasten the shift of the center of the global auto industry from Detroit to Shenzhen.
America’s unilateral retreat from leadership is an “own goal” which, in the language of the Clean Air Act, endangers the public health and welfare; it also ties us to obsolete technologies, and cedes leadership and competitive advantages to our largest geopolitical rival.
In its new rule eliminating the Endangerment Finding—an important pillar of US climate policy which enables regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has retreated from its botched attempt to cast doubt on climate science. The new rule also rescinds regulations in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
EPA’s initial attack on the Endangerment Finding relied heavily on shoddy scientific arguments taken from a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and written by a hand-picked set of climate “skeptics.” That report was thoroughly eviscerated on substance by the scientific community, and a judge ruled that the secretive process the DOE used to produce it was illegal. The DOE report is so thoroughly discredited that the EPA felt obliged to note in its final rule that it “is not relying on the report… for any aspect of this final action.” And, more generally, “EPA is not relying on new findings by the Administrator with respect to global climate change … as a basis for the rescission or repeals.”
Instead, EPA is leaning heavily on legal arguments to support its action. First, EPA argues that the Clean Air Act does not and never did apply to greenhouse gases. One tiny problem with this argument is that the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary in 2007, and that ruling–Massachusetts v. EPA–still stands. Second, EPA invokes the “major questions doctrine” to argue that an absence of clear direction from Congress implies that EPA lacks authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act. This ignores amendments (made by Congress) to the Clean Air Act that explicitly categorize greenhouse gases as air pollutants.
Finally, the EPA argues that regulation of vehicle emissions would be “futile” because these emissions make a relatively small contribution to climate change, hence regulation of these emissions would provide little relief. (This of course implicitly acknowledges that climate change is a problem). In fact, U.S. vehicle emissions are significant—about 2.5% of all global emissions. That may not sound like much, but it is similar to emissions from global aviation and from global shipping (each alone), and it is greater than emissions from all but the four highest-emitting nations. Furthermore, one can always justify doing nothing by slicing and dicing emissions sources into infinitesimal slivers and then arguing that none of them by itself is significant.
The modeling EPA presents to support the contention that regulating U.S. motor vehicle emissions would be “futile” assumes that these emissions will decline substantially over the rest of this century. It is surprising, not to mention ironic, that the EPA makes this assumption at the same time it is creating a regulatory environment where these emissions are likely to increase!
Finally, it is important to note that to establish endangerment, it is not necessary to prove that vehicle emissions per se are harmful, or by extension that regulating them (alone) would be substantially helpful. It is only necessary to establish that vehicle emissions contribute to a body of pollution (elevated greenhouse gas concentrations), which in total is harmful.
Clearly, the EPA is creating a pathway whereby the Supreme Court could overturn Massachusetts v. EPA–the decision that deemed that the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gases. By decreeing that the Clean Air Act does not apply to greenhouse gases, EPA is inviting litigation on that point, and they will certainly get it.
While this litigation grinds along (and maybe afterwards, depending on how it ends), what we will get is higher greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, more impacts of climate change (extreme weather, wildfire, sea level rise, etc.), and all of the health and economic consequences those things bring. We will also get more particulate pollution, more ozone pollution, and the associated increases in mortality, health impacts, and health care costs, as well as higher vehicle operating costs.
Finally, the EPA’s move powerfully signals abandonment of U.S. leadership on climate, which may make it easier for other nations also to scale back ambition. Australia, New Zealand, and others seem to be doing this. A notable exception is China, which is deploying renewable energy faster than any other country, and in fact is expected to add more renewable energy than all other nations combined. As a result, China’s emissions seem to have peaked in 2024, ahead of their self-imposed deadline of 2030. China is also developing a massive electric vehicle industry that’s poised to dominate global markets. EPA’s decision will only hasten the shift of the center of the global auto industry from Detroit to Shenzhen.
America’s unilateral retreat from leadership is an “own goal” which, in the language of the Clean Air Act, endangers the public health and welfare; it also ties us to obsolete technologies, and cedes leadership and competitive advantages to our largest geopolitical rival.
Stay in touch
Sign up to our Spark newsletter and stay updated!
Menu
Stay in touch
Sign up to our Spark newsletter and stay updated!
