What’s next in EPA’s efforts to withdraw its 2009 Endangerment Finding, which concluded that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane from vehicles, pose a threat to public health and welfare? The finding was supported by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, affirming that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
EPA announced its intention in July, contending that subsequent research had “cast significant doubt” on the accuracy of the Endangerment Finding and setting a September 22 deadline for public comments. On the eve of that deadline, the Federal Register reported that EPA had received more than 140,000 comments. Now the agency must analyze them and decide its next steps.
A week before the deadline, the nation’s leading scientific advisory body issued a major report contradicting the administration’s claims and marshaling the strongest evidence to date that carbon dioxide, methane and other planet-warming greenhouse gases are threatening human health. The report, published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, concludes that the original endangerment finding was accurate and “has stood the test of time.” It says that there is now even stronger evidence that rising greenhouse gas levels can threaten public health and well-being, and that new risks have been uncovered. “The United States,” it said, “faces a future in which climate-induced harm continues to worsen and today’s extremes become tomorrow’s norms.”
Critics of EPA’s proposed withdrawal of the finding included 102 lawmakers, led by Congresswoman Doris Matsui (D-CA). They wrote to EPA to urge reconsideration of its proposal. "This is a clear abdication of EPA's core mission to protect human health and the environment and a flagrant rejection of Congressional intent," the letter said.
The New York Times’ Brad Plumer reported that the EPA proposal is “one of President Donald Trump’s most significant steps yet to derail federal climate efforts. If the move is held up in court, future administrations would have no authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.”
In response to the report, EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Holran, said, “The endangerment finding has been used by the Obama and Biden administrations to justify trillions of dollars of greenhouse gas regulations covering new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. As we saw in the 16 intervening years since the endangerment finding was made, many of the extremely pessimistic predictions and assumptions E.P.A. relied upon have not materialized as expected.”
As it moves ahead, will EPA simply dismiss the National Academies’ strongly worded report? Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, told The Times, “Courts are going to be very leery if the E.P.A. tries to ignore or reject the findings of the National Academies of Sciences.”