Now that President Trump’s EPA has thrown out the endangerment finding–a determination that carbon dioxide, methane and four other greenhouse gases were a threat to public health and welfare–legal and state policy wheels are turning.
Of course, what we also would like to see is renewed momentum on Capitol Hill for putting a price on carbon emissions. Such a free-market approach should appeal to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, regardless of their views on regulatory responses to global warming.
The withdrawal of the endangerment finding marks the culmination of years of effort by right-wing and industry groups to undermine the cornerstone of federal rules that limit greenhouse gases — and to hamper future administrations from putting them back in place after Trump leaves office.
“If the rule survives …legal challenges, we reiterate that it could reshape U.S. federal climate policy by pendulum-proofing the issue against a Democrat sweep” in the 2028 general elections, Clearview Energy Partners, a consulting firm, said.
That is a risk that many supporters of the endangerment finding think is worth taking. “You can’t just stand by and let E.P.A. trash its own authority because you’re scared of a potentially negative ruling” from the Supreme Court, said Andres Restrepo, a lawyer for the Sierra Club. “I think that it’s a bigger risk to do nothing.”
A coalition of health and environmental organizations has already sued the Trump administration over its February 12 decision. “EPA has a duty to consider the well-being and safety of all, and the science is clear; climate change and air pollution threaten everyone’s health,” said Georges Benjamin, chief executive officer of the American Public Health Association, one of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit was brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Meantime, as Politico’s Alex Nieves wrote, “The Trump administration just tore apart decades of U.S. climate policy, but it may have also handed California its golden ticket.” He explained that some legal experts argue that state regulators now will have the power to fill the void. “That’s because states are preempted from setting their own tailpipe standards — a restriction that becomes hard to defend if the federal government bows out of the emissions game.”
Trump’s EPA is trying to head off that legal reasoning. The agency’s official repeal argues that states are still preempted from developing laws or regulations that “adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or engines.”
Fifty states trying to solve the climate problem individually is not a scenario that appeals to the auto industry. As Politico reported, “While major car companies lobbied Congress to revoke California’s EV sales mandate last year, they stopped short of advocating against the endangerment finding and didn’t explicitly praise the repeal last week.”
Maxine Joselow of The New York Times noted that Colorado legislators “are trying carrots rather than sticks.” In the coming weeks, they plan to introduce a bill that would provide a $2,000 tax credit toward new electric vehicle purchases starting in 2027, up from the current amount of $750. It’s just one example of initiatives that states are pursuing to tackle climate change’s threats to our health and prosperity.
“The transition to cleaner, nonfossilized fuel is happening very rapidly even though Donald Trump is trying to slow down this progress,” said Jay Inslee, the former governor of Washington. “The states are tremendous powers in this clean energy transition we’re going through.”