The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, the most aggressive move by the Republican president to roll back climate regulations.
The rule finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency rescinds a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The Obama-era finding is the legal underpinning of nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.
The repeal eliminates all greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks and could unleash a broader undoing of climate regulations on stationary sources such as power plants and oil and gas facilities, experts say. Legal challenges are near certain.
I wish to reduce CO2 emissions but the "Endangerment Finding" in 2009 was the most creative interpretation of the Clean Air Act ever devised. The 1970 Clean Air Act and later amendments did not expressly target greenhouse gases like CO2. Congress’ focus at that time was on local air quality problems (smog, particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide). In the 1990 amendments, Congress considered and ultimately chose not to adopt direct greenhouse gas regulatory provisions, indicating Congress did not intend to give EPA broad CO2 regulatory authority under the Act. The SC in Massachusetts v. EPA made a partisan ruling (5 to 4) to intentionally ignore the intent of the law, and instead rule strictly on its current meaning. Since the legislation was written very broadly, they ruled that CO2 could be covered.
We know the ruling was partisan because these same judges have ruled using originalist interpretations in the past. For example Stevens argued for congressional intent re INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987).
If the American people wish to regulate CO2, it should pass a law with the intent to do so. Hijacking legislation which was never intended for this purpose was always going to be rescinded. Just like Trump's executive orders are going to be easily rescinded.
Is this the claim that pollutants aren’t covered by the clean air act unless there is a specific law? That the wording giving them authority to create regulations to protect human health and the environment doesn’t exist? That it’s reasonable to insist on potentially thousands of modifications of the law, if that’s what it takes to get clean air?
I feel I provided a lot of context in my comment and you didn't read it before you replied because your questions are answered.
You claim that Congress did not specify regulating carbon dioxide so EPA should not do it without a specific law/amendment
That earlier court ruling decided the clean air act included provisions for letting EPA make science-based decisions on what and how to regulate pollution
I claim there are thousands of air pollutants that potentially need to be addressed: you’re not only presuming congress’s intent but adding them one by one is unmanageable, deciding politically which to pay attention to is unsound. Clean air act establishes priorities and goals - let’s allow the experts figure out how best to achieve that, Congress only needs to set guardrails
No, again, read my comment. Congress specifically chose not to regulate CO2 in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. It was discussed and rejected. It is a matter of public record. No assumptions need to be made. We know exactly what was intended to be in the legislation.
No matter how many times I read your argument, it doesn’t change anything. You presume to correct Congress’s intent from selected parts of history during the creation of the bill, and disregarding the actual text that passed
I'm not presuming anything. They explained their intent. It was the EPA which ignored Congress' clearly articulated intent.