The EPA wants to eliminate its authority to fight climate change
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Last week, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to rescind the agency’s landmark 2009 declaration that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.
The move is designed to eliminate the EPA’s authority to fight climate change, according to Zeldin. He framed it as “driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion" that’s been used to justify ~$1 trillion in unneeded US regulations.
The arguments
To support its new finding, the Trump admin commissioned a report from several top scientists who are skeptical of current climate science. Among other assertions, the report’s authors say that:
- Temperatures in the US are milder now than they were in the 1930s.
- There are unconsidered benefits to warmer temps and higher CO2 levels, including higher crop yields and longer growing seasons.
- Heat waves, floods, wildfires, and other extreme weather aren’t getting worse.
- Current computer models are inaccurate and can’t predict future atmospheric warming.
However…Many other scientists and policymakers disagree. Data collected by the NOAA—and the EPA itself—has consistently found that average global temperatures are at their highest level since record-keeping began in the 1850s, even if temps in the US are below record highs from the 1930s.
- America's 2023 National Climate Assessment—a congressionally mandated document from 14 federal agencies—also found higher CO2 levels and temperatures can increase the risk of extreme weather events like droughts and wildfires, along with boosting the amount of pests and diseases that affect crops.
The potential impact: If finalized, the EPA’s proposed rule change would eliminate current regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions from cars, factories, power plants, aircraft, landfills, and other sources. It could also prevent future presidential administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change.
Looking ahead…The EPA’s announcement is only a proposal for now. It’s widely expected to be challenged, first in comments during the process of finalizing the rule, and later in US courts.
📊 Flash poll: In general, do you support or oppose the EPA’s push to rescind its 2009 declaration that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare?
See a 360° view of what pundits are saying →
Sprinkles from the Left
- Some commentators argue that while President Trump wants cheap oil and gas to fuel prosperity, that’s like eating nothing but high-calorie desserts—whatever short-term reward, there’s a steep long-term health cost to such self-destructive behavior.
- Others contend that CO2 may not be something that will instantly harm our health or endanger our lives, but it is inarguably dangerous to public health and welfare when considered on a macro scale—and that the EPA knows this, but is capitulating to Trump instead.
- “How Much Damage Can the New, Unprotective EPA Do?” –Mark Gongloff, Bloomberg
- “Zeldin’s greenhouse gasbag: EPA wants us to think greenhouses gases are safe” –NY Daily News Editorial Board
- “Climate: EPA rejects the science, ignores the heat” –Peter Jensen, Baltimore Sun
Sprinkles from the Right
- Some commentators argue that the EPA is right to undo its regulation of greenhouse gases, since Congress never gave the agency the authority to do so, and the agency’s decision will help Americans by making it harder for the feds to dictate what kind of car or lawn-mower you can buy.
- Others contend that the EPA is right to stop regulating CO2, since federal lawmakers can pass legislation saying so if they really want the agency to do so, and also because the scientific consensus around global warming is misguided at best.
- “Climate Regulation Liberation Day” –WSJ Editorial Board
- “EPA pardons carbon dioxide” –Washington Times Editorial Board
- “Axing EPA’s ‘endangerment’ BS will unleash a new era of US prosperity” –NY Post Editorial Board
Share this!
Recent Discussion stories
Discussion
| August 1, 2025Trump’s reciprocal tariffs are officially in effect—for now
Starting today, dozens of countries face new US tariff rates after President Trump’s trade-deal deadline for nearly all US trading partners expired at 12:01 am this morning. But they may not remain in place for long, as Trump’s trade strategy faced its biggest legal test yet yesterday.
Discussion
| July 30, 2025The Skydance-Paramount deal raises thorny questions about media bias
📺 Following months of scrutiny, the FCC recently approved Skydance Media's $8 billion acquisition of CBS-owner Paramount. And the deal is raising eyebrows among opponents of the Trump admin over certain conditions related to bias in mainstream media.
Discussion
| July 28, 2025America’s fertility rate hits a new record low
📝 The US fertility rate fell to an all-time low of ~1.6 children per woman in 2024, according to new CDC data published late last week.
You've made it this far...
Let's make our relationship official, no 💍 or elaborate proposal required. Learn and stay entertained, for free.👇
All of our news is 100% free and you can unsubscribe anytime; the quiz takes ~10 seconds to complete