The Trump Administration recently announced its intention to abandon the 2009 endangerment finding that allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other pollutants because of their greenhouse gas effects. The EPA’s original determination was the result of years of extensive scientific research, and concluded that the weight of scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicated the need to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The 2009 finding is the basis for the EPA’s subsequent rules to regulate emissions from cars and trucks, and to define carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and other sources as pollutants subject to regulation owing to their climate change effects.
Now, with an effort underway to reverse that finding, it raises the question of the role of science in regulation. The rulemaking process, particularly where it involves environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, is rooted in utilizing the best available science to establish the rationale for a regulation.
The existing finding from 2009 referenced extensively the National Climate Assessments created by U.S. Global Change Research Program, comprised of 14 federal agencies. In July, the Trump Administration shut down the website that hosted the five reports authored by the program over the past 20 years. In August, the EPA proposed to eliminate its previous conclusions about the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change.
In the intervening 15 years, much of what the scientists anticipated has come to be. In 2009, the National Climate Assessments predicted that “heat waves will become more intense, more frequent, and longer lasting in a future warm climate.” Each year recently has been the hottest on record, an apparent confirmation of the 2009 assessment.
The 2009 endangerment finding predicted an increase in the intensity of precipitation events, increasing risk of flooding and greater runoff. Sure enough, states ranging from Texas to North Carolina have experienced storms dumping historic amounts of rain.
The assessment predicted decreases in precipitation across the southwestern United States, something any of us in Durango or southwest Colorado can easily attest to.
The Clean Air Act requires that EPA rely on science for setting emission standards and health-based air quality standards. EPA must use the best available science resulting from the scientific process and hypothesis testing.
To reverse the EPA’s existing endangerment finding that considers greenhouse gas emissions including carbon dioxide and methane pollutants of concern, the Trump EPA will need to provide a similarly compelling level of scientific evidence to the contrary.
To the lay person, the climate consequences of continued fossil fuel combustion seem abundantly apparent, from heat waves, to more intense precipitation events in some areas, to the decades-long drought in the Colorado River basin. The trends are even more compelling to climate scientists.
The about face contemplated by the Trump EPA will undoubtedly encounter vigorous opposition and legal challenges. An agency cannot simply reverse its regulatory position on a whim, particularly one rooted in robust scientific evidence. It’s considered an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion.
Courts don’t assert themselves as experts in the particulars of any scientific subject matter, such as climate science. But they do look at the procedures by which rules are adopted or rescinded, including using the best available science. With decades of worldwide scientific research and opinion about the overwhelming role of greenhouse gas emissions in climate change, the Trump EPA will be hard pressed to demonstrate how decades of robust scientific consensus is now all wrong.
EPA is accepting public comment at a virtual hearing beginning Tuesday, August 19. Comment at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-reconsideration-2009-endangerment-finding.
Mark Pearson is executive director at San Juan Citizens Alliance. Reach him at mark@sanjuancitizens.org.
