Plan to Strip Control on Climate Pollution from EPA Causes Alarm for Businesses
In a move that could bring about one of the most significant deregulatory actions in U.S. history, the previous administration aimed to repeal a critical finding that links climate pollution to public health and welfare. This step could potentially introduce a high-risk situation for corporations nationwide.
Understanding the Endangerment Finding
The endangerment finding is a legal framework that has been the backbone of federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act since 2009. It states that the build-up of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is harmful to both human health and community well-being. This determination has been essential in setting pollution limits. Its repeal would mean the withdrawal of all federal greenhouse gas standards.
Businesses' Perspective
While many companies have criticized the government's attempts to control heat-trapping pollution as unrealistic, they still favor a national standard set by a government agency. According to legal experts and proponents, these standards protect businesses from legal action and provide a stable environment conducive to making substantial, long-term investments.
Key industry figures have voiced their concern over changes to these regulatory policies. They argue that these changes could disrupt planning and obstruct necessary projects. Moreover, some argue that the country can expand energy production affordably, while also managing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, aiding national security and leading the AI race.
It's important to note that no major industry groups have advocated for the reversal of the endangerment finding. In fact, several have opposed it, and some have even tried to persuade the administration against it. For instance, a prominent trade group that represents oil and gas companies has consistently advocated for a federal role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
The Administration's Stand
The previous administration countered by stating that Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. They argue that their proposal is primarily a legal one. Nevertheless, they have acknowledged that the climate is changing.
A Potential Legal Quagmire
Environmental advocates, public health professionals, and former EPA employees have warned that the administration's proposition contradicts the widely accepted scientific consensus. They hold that climate pollution, primarily resulting from burning fossil fuels, is causing global temperatures to rise and leading to more severe storms, floods, and wildfires. These natural disasters pose significant threats to communities.
Communities across the U.S. are already feeling the impact of rising temperatures. Numerous lawsuits have been filed in recent years by states and localities against fossil fuel companies. They accuse these companies of misleading the public about the hazards of burning fossil fuels for decades. The lawsuits seek compensation to help communities manage the risks and damages caused by global warming.
Some of these cases have been filed in state courts where the EPA's current regulation of climate pollution has shielded oil and gas companies from litigation. However, if the federal Clean Air Act stops regulating greenhouse gas emissions through EPA, this defense could disappear, potentially exposing companies to greater legal risk.
Conservative Advocacy Group's View
Despite the potential legal risks, some conservative advocacy groups stand by the administration's move. They argue that the Supreme Court made an error in a 2007 case when it labeled carbon dioxide as "air pollution" under the Clean Air Act. They point out that the five justices who were in the majority in that case are no longer part of the court. This stance reflects the ongoing tensions between business interests and ideological beliefs.
Final Thoughts
While the future remains uncertain, what is clear is that a potential rollback of the EPA's authority could expose companies to a wave of environmental lawsuits, creating a chaotic situation for businesses. This development signifies a growing divide within the conservative movement, with some focusing on the practical needs of businesses and others driven by ideological beliefs.