The Environmental Protection Agency revoked a scientific finding empowering the regulation of air pollution, reigniting a debate over how the U.S. should build its economy, compete on the global stage, and determine who will ultimately bear the costs. Now, a court battle looms after top public health organizations and environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the EPA.
What's happening?
The Associated Press reported that a coalition of groups filed a lawsuit against the EPA to challenge the rescission of a 2009 federal declaration known as the endangerment finding.
Since 1975, the Clean Air Act has helped officials address welfare risks associated with known air pollutants. As for the endangerment finding decades later, it specifically addressed a mix of gases released from fossil-fuel-powered motor vehicles based on decades of scientific assessments.
The harmful carbon pollution from gas-guzzlers can increase the risk of asthma, exacerbate incurable conditions like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and contribute to premature death, according to the American Lung Association, one of the leading health organizations suing the EPA.
As the endangerment finding itself was based solely on scientific evidence, the declaration itself didn't impose any regulatory restrictions on the auto industry. However, it did serve as a prerequisite for stricter emissions standards for motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
In a statement, the EPA said it "finalized the repeal of all subsequent GHG emission standards from its regulations for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and engines" because the agency "lacks statutory authority" to prescribe standards without the finding.
Why is this important?
Scientific findings take many years because discovery is a rigorous process of observation, experimentation, data collection, analysis, and peer review. The organizations suing the EPA argue that repealing the finding is a clear example of politics bleeding into a nonpartisan matter.
"Supported by science and the law, the endangerment finding has been a cornerstone of public health protection for more than 15 years," the American Lung Association wrote in a statement over the summer, when the EPA initially proposed overruling the endangerment finding.
"It is the foundation of EPA's ability and responsibility to regulate climate pollutants like carbon dioxide and methane. Overturning it would go against decades of scientific consensus and put polluters ahead of the health of children, seniors, and communities," it continued.
President Donald Trump's push to spur a domestic manufacturing boom appears to be at the heart of the matter. Whereas the previous administration favored cleaner energy and technologies to create jobs and develop the economy, his administration is bullish on coal, oil, and gas. The fossil fuel industry, in turn, supports the traditional auto industry.
TCD Picks » Upway Spotlight
💡Upway makes it easy to find discounts of up to 60% on premium e-bike brands
|
Which of these savings plans for rooftop solar panels would be most appealing for you?
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. |
Save $1,000 this year 💸 What's being done about this?
For its part, the EPA stated that the deregulatory measure would save Americans $1.3 trillion over roughly the next 30 years, primarily by reducing vehicle costs.
However, the question on critics' minds is: "At what cost?"
In 2021, a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that air pollution and its effects (e.g., climate change) created $820 billion in health costs every year in the U.S. Making this question all the more poignant is the fact that electric alternatives are in demand in a lucrative global market, offer lower lifetime operating costs, and produce zero tailpipe pollution.
"This reckless and legally untenable decision creates immediate uncertainty for businesses, guarantees prolonged legal battles, and undermines the stability of federal climate regulations," said Brian Lynk, a senior attorney at the Environmental Law & Policy Center, per the AP.
The lawsuit asserts that the EPA unlawfully revoked the endangerment finding. Things will now play out in court after the filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
"The Trump EPA's action today favors political ideology over statutory law, Supreme Court precedent, sound science, and common sense," said Howard Learner, CEO and executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, who in his statement cited worsening storms in the Midwest, rising insurance costs, and health issues as real-world impacts of air pollution.
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips to save more, waste less, and make smarter choices — and earn up to $5,000 toward clean upgrades in TCD's exclusive Rewards Club.
Cool Picks
