By Abdullahi Lukman
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is facing intense criticism after announcing a proposal to repeal the “endangerment finding” that classifies greenhouse gases as harmful pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
This foundational scientific determination, established nearly two decades ago, underpins U.S. climate policy and regulations on emissions from power plants, vehicles, and the oil and gas industry.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes condemned the move as “wrong on the science and unlawful,” accusing the EPA of ignoring the growing costs of climate change for Americans.
Public health advocates warned the repeal could increase harmful air pollution, worsening asthma and other health problems amid cuts to Medicaid and affordable care programs.
More than 700 environmentalists, health experts, officials, and citizens are scheduled to voice opposition during the current public comment period.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described the rollback as the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history, part of a broader effort to dismantle 31 environmental regulations.
The endangerment finding originated from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling recognizing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane as air pollutants.
The EPA’s 2009 determination that these gases endanger public health led to critical emissions controls still in place today.
The Trump administration’s EPA argues it relied on diverse sources, including a Department of Energy (DOE) report suggesting some mitigation policies might cause more harm than good.
However, many scientists cited in that report, including prominent climate experts Ben Santer and Zeke Hausfather, say their research was misrepresented to support a climate denial narrative.
Santer described the DOE’s approach as “egregious” and expressed concern that the department has become a hub for climate denialism.
Hausfather highlighted that using current emission trends to justify policy rollbacks is “fundamentally flawed” and risks pushing emissions higher. Both scientists are preparing formal rebuttals alongside dozens of peers.
The DOE’s Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended the report, denying data manipulation and disputing links between climate change and extreme weather.
Yet, attribution science increasingly confirms human influence on severe weather events, and 2024 set new records for greenhouse gas levels and global temperatures.
Legal experts also oppose the repeal.
The Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit alleging the DOE secretly enlisted climate skeptics to author the report, violating federal transparency laws.
The government has not yet responded, and Wright dismissed the lawsuit as “crazy,” accusing opponents of promoting an “alarmist narrative.”
If the repeal proceeds, the EPA would no longer be legally required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, marking a major shift in U.S. climate policy with significant environmental and public health implications.
