**
In a significant policy shift, U.S. President Donald Trump has announced the cancellation of the endangerment finding, an essential scientific determination from the Obama era that has been pivotal for U.S. environmental regulations. This move, executed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is anticipated to lead to a myriad of environmental and economic repercussions, with many experts forecasting a legal showdown as environmental organisations prepare to challenge the decision in court.
Diminished Greenhouse Gas Regulations
The most immediate effect of this policy change will be the loosening of restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, particularly impacting the automobile industry. The endangerment finding, established in 2009, was grounded in a comprehensive EPA report that identified six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, as threats to public health and future generations. This ruling followed a landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision affirming the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Historically, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions peaked in the late 2000s but have since been on a downward trajectory. However, with the removal of the endangerment finding, the regulatory framework that has constrained emissions from various industries, especially automotive manufacturers, has been significantly weakened. Analysts from the Environmental Defense Fund project that the absence of these regulations could lead to an additional 7.5 to 18 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases being emitted by 2055, which would represent a staggering threefold increase in annual emissions compared to current levels. The economic implications of this increase, they warn, could amount to trillions of dollars in costs.
Economic Claims and Industry Responses
While environmental advocates express concern, the Trump administration argues that eliminating the endangerment finding will yield economic benefits, particularly by reducing the costs of vehicles. The White House has claimed that this policy reversal could lower automobile manufacturing expenses by approximately $2,400 (£1,760) per vehicle.
Since the introduction of the endangerment finding, policies encouraging fuel efficiency and electric vehicle production have flourished. However, under Trump, many of these initiatives have been dismantled. Some automotive manufacturers, including Ford, have welcomed the decision, asserting it will rectify perceived imbalances between emission standards and consumer preferences. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation echoed this sentiment, suggesting that it would correct “unachievable emissions regulations” imposed by the previous administration. Nevertheless, experts like Columbia University’s Michael Gerrard caution that this rollback may hinder U.S. automakers’ competitiveness in global markets where emissions standards remain stringent.
Surge in Legal Challenges
The removal of the endangerment finding is likely to rekindle a wave of litigation concerning greenhouse gas emissions. A 2011 Supreme Court ruling had previously positioned the EPA as the primary regulator of these emissions, effectively curtailing the ability of courts to adjudicate related disputes. With the endangerment finding rescinded, legal scholars predict an uptick in public nuisance lawsuits, where states could once again pursue corporate polluters for damages caused by their emissions.
Robert Percival, an environmental law professor at the University of Maryland, suggests that this shift may backfire on the Trump administration, leading to a resurgence of legal accountability for companies contributing to environmental degradation.
Public Health and Global Competitiveness
The EPA’s assertion that maintaining greenhouse gas emissions standards does not align with its core mission to protect human health has been met with skepticism from the scientific community. Research indicates that increased emissions can lead to severe health consequences, including premature mortality. The Environmental Defense Fund estimates that by 2055, the rise in emissions could result in an additional 15,400 to 58,000 premature deaths, alongside millions more asthma attacks and hospital visits.
Moreover, as the U.S. retracts from clean vehicle standards, concerns grow about its position in the global renewable energy race. The Biden administration had previously championed policies to foster domestic renewable technology development to keep pace with international competitors. Margo T Oge, a former EPA head, warns that while the U.S. retreats, other nations, particularly in the EU and China, are advancing their electric vehicle markets. John Kerry, former U.S. Secretary of State, has also highlighted the advancements made by China in renewable energy, urging that the U.S. must not isolate itself from global progress.
Implications of Reduced Regulation
While the Trump administration argues that deregulation will alleviate economic pressures, critics contend that this approach could ultimately undermine the U.S. automotive industry. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has labelled the recent deregulatory action as “the single largest” in U.S. history, claiming it will save American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion (£950 billion). Advocates for deregulation argue that stringent emissions standards have led to increased production costs and the offshoring of manufacturing jobs to countries with laxer regulations.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a former official at the Department of Transportation, underscores the irony of the situation, asserting that the shift in manufacturing overseas does not equate to a reduction in global emissions, as those processes may be more environmentally harmful.
Why it Matters
The implications of Trump’s climate policy reversal extend far beyond U.S. borders. As the nation steps back from stringent environmental regulations, it risks not only exacerbating climate change but also losing its competitive edge in the burgeoning renewable energy sector. The potential increase in greenhouse gas emissions poses significant public health risks, while the anticipated legal battles could further complicate the landscape for environmental governance in America. As other nations push forward with progressive climate policies, the U.S. must confront the long-term consequences of its retreat from environmental stewardship, both domestically and globally.
