Now we know the value the Environmental Protection Agency places on the bedrock foundation that enables the federal government to control engine exhaust — $54 billion a year.
EPA thinks $54 billion is way, way, WAY too much money to spend limiting emissions for cars and trucks and that all those pesky regulations are getting in the way for Americans to buy “safe and affordable cars.”
Nevermind that the EPA’s own regulatory impact analysis says controlling car and truck greenhouse gas emissions will save consumers $820 billion at the gas station and provide a whopping $1.8 trillion in climate and public health benefits over the next 30 years.
Now the EPA wants to throw all that away.
For $54 billion, the EPA and its climate change denier administrator Lee Zeldin say it will rescind EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which scientifically established that greenhouse gasses are a public health hazard of, well, biblical proportions:
“Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 202(a), the Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare. Specifically, the Administrator is defining the ‘air pollution’’ referred to in CAA section 202(a) to be the mix of six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)… The Administrator has determined that the body of scientific evidence compellingly supports this finding.”
EPA’s own 2009 acknowledgment that greenhouse gases are very, very bad stemmed from the 2007 5-4 Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts v EPA. The court found EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses of motor vehicles as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act:
“On the merits, the first question is whether §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it forms a ‘judgment’ that such emissions contribute to climate change. We have little trouble concluding that it does.”
The Supreme Court ruling also emphasized EPA could not refuse to regulate greenhouse gasses for strictly policy reasons unless it found evidence that greenhouse gasses do not contribute to climate change or why doing so is inappropriate.
The EPA previously denied 14 petitions filed between 2009 and 2019 seeking a reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding.
But that’s not how Zeldin sees it. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Zeldin was questioned about Massachusetts v EPA. Zeldin said EPA was authorized but not required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, presumably willing to give each and every one of those 14 petitions a serious look-see.
And now Zeldin flat out argues EPA is not authorized by Congress to take on greenhouse gas emissions: “We do not have that power on our own to decide as an agency that we are going to combat global climate change because we give ourselves that power.”
The EPA proposed rule makes for some eye opening reading, claiming the EPA “…now believe that GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines may harm public health and welfare without having any measurable impact on the global climate change concerns identified in the Endangerment Finding.”
EPA references the Supreme Court 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, which severely reduced the power of federal agencies to interpret Congressional laws:
“Specifically, we propose that the major questions doctrine applies and precludes the EPA from asserting authority to regulate in response to global climate change concerns under CAA section 202(a). At a minimum, Congress did not clearly authorize the EPA to decide the Nation’s response to global climate change concerns by empowering the Agency to ‘prescribe … standards’ for certain air pollutants emitted by new motor vehicles and engines.”
Perhaps most shocking is that EPA says the endangerment finding:
“…did not adequately balance the projected adverse impacts attributed to global climate change with the potential benefits to the United States of increased GHG concentrations, and increased CO2 concentrations in particular. Unlike virtually every other gas regulated under the CAA, CO2 is necessary for human, animal, and plant life, and advances public health and welfare by directly impacting plant growth and therefore the price and availability of food, the success of American agricultural and related industries, and the traditional capacity of the United States to export significant food supplies around the world for economic and humanitarian purposes.”
What? Extra carbon dioxide outweighs all the terrible effects of climate change? Imagine the U.S. without tailpipe emission standards. That’s scary.
Climate change fighters are incensed, including the Federation of American Scientists.
World Resources Institute U.S. Director David Widawsky was blunt about EPA’s intentions:
“Every person in the country should be alarmed that EPA is proposing to walk away from its responsibility to protect America’s citizens and their wallets.”
This will end up in the courts. My fear is that once a case is filed in federal district court the White House will immediately go to the Supreme Court seeking an emergency ruling on the justices’ black box shadow docket.
Right now, the fight is over gasoline tail pipe emissions. But an unfavorable ruling against climate change causes could have far-reaching consequences, including the nation’s power grid and consumer products. And it will be very difficult for a future administration to undo such a ruling.
Let’s be frank. Zeldon and his climate change-denying EPA cohorts don’t care about the long term future of the planet. Not when there’s a measly $54 billion a year to divvy up.
read more
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
