Trump Administration Seeks to Overturn The EPA’s Climate Regulation Authority

On July 29, the Trump administration announced its intent to overturn an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding that has represented US climate regulations for the past 15 years. They aim to remove the legal basis that limits greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants and many other sources.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin revealed the plan at a car dealership in Indiana, calling it “the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.” If the plan is finalized, it would completely repeal the 2009 endangerment finding: a scientific and legal conclusion that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public. 

The 2009 endangerment finding was issued during the Obama administration after the 2007 Supreme Court case: Massachusetts v. EPA. That decision required the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions posed a threat to human health. The agency concluded they did, which then became the entire foundation for major climate regulations. Regulations include: limits on vehicle tailpipe emissions and methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. 

The proposal has ignited a range of responses since Tuesday. Environmental groups are already condemning Zeldin’s plan. “The EPA is telling us that U.S. efforts to address climate change are over,” said Abigail Dillen, the president of Earthjustice. California air regulators called it a retreat into “polluter fantasyland.” Not only that, but legal experts also expect massive challenges in court. If the repeal is upheld, it would gut existing climate regulations, leaving the US without a framework to control greenhouse gas pollution. This is especially problematic as global warming intensifies.

Additionally, if upheld, it would set a precedent that would restrict future administrations from taking action against climate change easily.  Zeldin's plan would shift the entire process: action would require having to pass new laws through Congress rather than relying on authority within the EPA. This would easily delay urgent changes needed to save the environment for years. 

Read more here:

• Jake Spring and Anusha Mathur, The Washington Post

• Matthew Daly, AP News

• Dharna Noor and Oliver Milman, The Guardian 

• Jeff Brady, NPR

Extemp Analysis by: Daphne Kalir-Starr

Question: What will be the implications of the EPA’s reversals on climate change?

AGD: I think there are two ways to take this AGD. The first is a humorous approach. Crack a joke about the situation! Some good options/potential nuggets are: 

1. The Taliban is joining climate change talks (needs virtually no other words)

2. Lee Zedlin head of the EPA said that carbon dioxide could be good for the planet

Another alternative option is a narrative. Advocate for someone who’s seen their home destroyed because of climate change, or someone who has seen their way of life changed. I think this topic is inherently really scary. Tell the story for someone who needs it. 

Background: 

A clean two-three sentences. The first sentence should be about the EPA’s previous policies, the 2007 case would be a nice flex here. The second sentence should be about how Trump has forced this to change/the EPA has deprioritized climate change. The final sentence should be about the repercussions/pushbacks.

For the Sig Statement,  really powerful statistic about how many lives will be lost because of these actions. Check this out. 

Answer: Greatly undermine the fight against climate change

1. Stripping grants from renewable energy companies  

2.  Forcing states to rework emission laws

3.  Emboldening the Trump administration to pursue drilling

So the substructure per point is going to be

1. Past – thing that the EPA did which limited climate change 

2. Future implications - How the EPA is revoking the policy, and how that's going to negatively impact the fight against climate change