N※N

Health and Fitness
Source : (remove) : The Hill
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Health and Fitness
Source : (remove) : The Hill
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Trump EPA will propose repealing finding that climate change endangers public health

EPA Moves to Repeal Key 2009 Environmental Determination, Signaling Shift in Regulatory Approach

In a significant policy reversal, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its proposal to repeal a 2009 determination that has long served as a cornerstone for regulating certain environmental hazards. This move, detailed in a recent notice published in the Federal Register, aims to address what agency officials describe as outdated scientific assessments and evolving understandings of public health risks. The 2009 determination in question pertains to the agency's finding on the dangers posed by specific airborne pollutants, particularly those linked to industrial emissions and their impact on air quality and human health.

The original 2009 determination, issued during the early days of the Obama administration, concluded that certain greenhouse gases and related pollutants endangered public health and welfare. This finding was groundbreaking at the time, providing the legal foundation for a series of regulations aimed at curbing emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other major sources. It was based on extensive scientific data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other bodies, asserting that rising levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases contributed to climate change, extreme weather events, and respiratory illnesses.

However, the current EPA leadership under the Biden administration argues that the 2009 framework has become insufficient in light of new research and the urgent need for more aggressive climate action. According to EPA Administrator Michael Regan, the repeal is not a step backward but rather a necessary reset to incorporate updated science and to strengthen protections. "The 2009 determination was a vital starting point, but we've learned so much more about the accelerating impacts of climate change," Regan said in a statement accompanying the proposal. "By repealing and replacing this finding, we can build a more robust regulatory structure that reflects the latest evidence and holds polluters accountable more effectively."

This proposal comes amid a broader effort by the Biden administration to undo rollbacks implemented during the Trump era, which had sought to weaken or challenge aspects of the 2009 finding. For instance, the Trump EPA attempted to limit the scope of the endangerment finding by questioning its application to certain sectors, such as aviation and heavy industry. Critics of those efforts argued that they undermined decades of environmental progress. Now, with this repeal proposal, the EPA is signaling an intent to not only restore but enhance the original intent, potentially expanding the determination to include emerging threats like microplastics in the atmosphere or the compounded effects of wildfires exacerbated by climate change.

Environmental advocates have mixed reactions to the announcement. Groups like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have welcomed the move as a bold step toward comprehensive climate policy. "This repeal opens the door for a new endangerment finding that could finally address the full spectrum of greenhouse gas threats," said NRDC senior attorney David Doniger. "We've seen how the 2009 version was weaponized against progress; now is the time to fortify it." On the other hand, some progressive voices express caution, warning that any repeal must be swiftly followed by a stronger replacement to avoid regulatory gaps that could allow increased emissions in the interim.

Industry stakeholders, particularly those in the fossil fuel and manufacturing sectors, have voiced strong opposition. The American Petroleum Institute (API) released a statement criticizing the proposal as "unnecessary regulatory overreach that could stifle economic growth." API President Mike Sommers argued that the 2009 determination has already imposed burdensome costs on businesses without commensurate benefits. "Repealing this without clear evidence of its flaws risks creating uncertainty and higher energy prices for American families," Sommers said. Similarly, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have called for a thorough cost-benefit analysis, emphasizing the need to balance environmental goals with job preservation in energy-dependent communities.

To understand the full implications, it's essential to delve into the historical context of the 2009 determination. It stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which mandated that the agency evaluate whether greenhouse gases posed a danger under the Clean Air Act. The resulting finding in 2009 was a direct response, declaring that six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—endangered public health through their contributions to global warming. This paved the way for landmark rules, including vehicle fuel efficiency standards and the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to reduce power plant emissions by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030.

Critics of the original finding, including some conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, have long contended that it overstepped the EPA's authority and relied on speculative climate models. They argue that natural climate variability, rather than human activity, plays a larger role in observed changes. However, overwhelming scientific consensus, as reiterated in recent IPCC reports, supports the human-driven nature of climate change, with projections of sea-level rise, intensified storms, and biodiversity loss if emissions aren't curtailed.

The EPA's proposal outlines a multi-step process for repeal. First, the agency will solicit public comments for a 60-day period, allowing input from scientists, industry experts, and the general public. Following this, the EPA plans to issue a new determination, potentially by late 2024, that incorporates advancements in climate modeling, epidemiological studies on air pollution's health effects, and data from recent extreme weather events. This could include explicit links to environmental justice, addressing how pollution disproportionately affects low-income and minority communities.

One key aspect of the proposed repeal is its potential to influence ongoing litigation. Several states and environmental groups have sued the federal government over delays in updating emission standards, and a repealed 2009 finding could reset the legal clock, providing fresh grounds for stricter rules. For example, it might bolster efforts to regulate emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for nearly 30% of U.S. greenhouse gases, or from agriculture, where methane from livestock is a growing concern.

Economically, the repeal could have far-reaching effects. A study by the Rhodium Group estimates that strengthening the endangerment finding could lead to $100 billion in annual health benefits by reducing asthma cases, heart disease, and premature deaths linked to poor air quality. Conversely, opponents cite potential job losses in coal-dependent regions, though the Biden administration has countered with investments in clean energy transitions, such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which allocates billions for renewable projects and workforce retraining.

Internationally, this move aligns with U.S. commitments under the Paris Agreement, where the country pledged to cut emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030. Repealing and updating the 2009 determination could enhance America's credibility at global climate talks, such as the upcoming COP29 conference, by demonstrating a commitment to science-based policy.

As the public comment period unfolds, debates are expected to intensify. Scientists like Dr. Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist, have urged the EPA to ensure the new finding is "ironclad against future political interference." Meanwhile, congressional Republicans, led by figures like Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, have promised oversight hearings to scrutinize the proposal, arguing it exemplifies executive overreach.

In essence, the EPA's proposal to repeal the 2009 determination represents a pivotal moment in U.S. environmental policy. It underscores the dynamic nature of science and regulation, where foundational decisions must evolve to meet new challenges. Whether this leads to stronger protections or sparks prolonged battles remains to be seen, but it clearly signals the administration's resolve to confront climate change head-on. As the process advances, stakeholders from all sides will be watching closely, knowing that the outcome could shape the nation's environmental landscape for decades to come.

This development also highlights broader tensions in American politics, where environmental regulations often intersect with economic interests and partisan divides. For communities already feeling the brunt of climate impacts— from coastal flooding in Florida to droughts in California—the stakes could not be higher. The EPA's action invites a national conversation on how best to safeguard public health while fostering sustainable growth, a balance that has eluded policymakers for years.

In the coming months, as comments pour in and analyses are conducted, the agency will need to navigate these complexities carefully. Success could mean a revitalized framework for emission controls, potentially accelerating the shift to electric vehicles, renewable energy, and carbon capture technologies. Failure, however, might result in legal setbacks or diluted protections, underscoring the fragility of environmental progress in a polarized era.

Ultimately, this proposal is more than a bureaucratic adjustment; it's a reflection of society's evolving relationship with the planet. By revisiting the 2009 determination, the EPA is not erasing history but rewriting it for a future where climate resilience is paramount. (Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full The Hill Article at:
[ https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5416694-epa-proposes-repeal-2009-determination/ ]