{"id":483427,"date":"2026-02-22T07:22:09","date_gmt":"2026-02-22T07:22:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/483427\/"},"modified":"2026-02-22T07:22:09","modified_gmt":"2026-02-22T07:22:09","slug":"health-and-climate-consequences-of-epas-endangerment-finding-repeal-cannot-be-overstated","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/483427\/","title":{"rendered":"Health and Climate Consequences of EPA\u2019s Endangerment Finding Repeal \u2018Cannot Be Overstated\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio\u2019s environmental news magazine<\/a>, an interview by Jenni Doering with Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In the landmark 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and should be controlled if they endanger public health. When Barack Obama became president in 2009, the EPA found that greenhouse gases do, in fact, endanger human health and welfare and thus need to be regulated.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The EPA did not put a cap on all global warming gases, but focused on major sectors, including tailpipe emissions from vehicles, the smokestacks of power plants and emissions from oil and gas extraction. Revoking endangerment<\/a> eliminates such rules and re-ignites the conservative anti-regulatory campaign that began in the Reagan era. Repealing the endangerment finding won\u2019t happen without fights in court<\/a>, but if the Trump administration finally wins its bid to end federal climate pollution regulation, states may move to curb emissions and expand efforts like the existing regional greenhouse gas initiative.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Pat Parenteau is an emeritus professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School and was EPA regional counsel under President Ronald Reagan. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.\u00a0<\/p>\n

JENNI DOERING: What are the likely consequences for public health and the climate of the EPA decision to rescind this finding?<\/p>\n

PAT PARENTEAU: The consequences cannot be overstated, and they\u2019re negative. By repealing the endangerment finding, you\u2019re knocking out the foundation for all of the federal government\u2019s regulation of carbon pollution and greenhouse gases, whether it\u2019s oil refineries, cement plants\u2014every source you can think of that\u2019s putting this kind of pollution into the atmosphere. This removes the ability of EPA to regulate any of it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

When Trump announced this repeal of the endangerment finding at his press conference, he and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin were bragging about the fact that this was the largest deregulatory effort in the history of the country. Right along with that\u2014and they didn\u2019t acknowledge this\u2014it\u2019s the most devastating decision by the federal government endangering public health and welfare in the history of the country.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"EmeritusEmeritus Professor Pat Parenteau. Credit: Vermont Law and Graduate School<\/p>\n

Here are some of the statistics<\/a>: Eighteen billion tons of pollution will be in the air we breathe and in the atmosphere [by 2055], driving climate change as a result of this decision, if it holds. Fifty-eight thousand additional deaths will occur as a result of this, and those deaths will come from the effects of climate change, like heat waves, floods, fires, drought\u2014but there are also lots of other kinds of illnesses, respiratory illnesses. There will be 37 million more asthma attacks on Americans as a result of this decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Those are some of the health effects, but the impacts go well beyond that. They\u2019re going to increase fuel prices by an estimated 25 cents per gallon by 2035, if this holds. That can result in $1.7 trillion impacts on consumers. Again, Trump was bragging about the fact that this decision saves $1 trillion, but that\u2019s just the cost of compliance for industry. It ignores the cost of climate change.<\/p>\n

DOERING: Walk us through what the Trump administration EPA has argued in this move to revoke the engagement finding. How are they framing this?<\/p>\n

PARENTEAU: They basically are saying the Supreme Court got it wrong in Massachusetts v. EPA. What Zeldin is saying is, when I read the Clean Air Act, I don\u2019t see in it the authority, the clear delegation of authority to do what the Obama administration did and what the Biden administration did. It\u2019s pretty clear the strategy here is to get this case back to the Supreme Court and have it overrule Massachusetts v. EPA and adopt the reading of the statute that Zeldin is arguing instead. And that would have very profound consequences.<\/p>\n

DOERING: In the original proposed rule to revoke the endangerment finding, the Trump EPA seemed to be focusing a little bit on climate denial, on denying the science itself, but I understand that they have really walked that back in this more final rule. What about that aspect?<\/p>\n

PARENTEAU: They\u2019re basically saying science doesn\u2019t matter because we don\u2019t have the legal authority to do anything about it. It\u2019s, \u2018Well, it\u2019s too bad if in fact the science is accurate, because we can\u2019t do anything about it.\u2019 So they have totally shifted the focus. Zeldin has, wisely, I would say, decided [he\u2019s] not going to attack the science, which is rock solid. You\u2019re not denying there\u2019s a danger, you\u2019re saying you can\u2019t do anything about it. That\u2019s what he\u2019s doing.<\/p>\n

DOERING: How solid are the legal grounds of this action by EPA? To what extent can they simply rescind this landmark finding in a single action?<\/p>\n

PARENTEAU: They can\u2019t do it by themselves.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve worked up three scenarios. There are lots of different ways this could go. The first scenario is, it\u2019s not clear that this case can even get to the Supreme Court before the clock runs out on the Trump administration. He\u2019s got less than three years to go. This case will be ripe for litigation. It goes to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, what we call the DC Circuit. It\u2019s a very expert court. It\u2019s also a court that isn\u2019t dominated by conservatives. So the question is, can Trump and Zeldin manage to get through the DC Circuit and up to the Supreme Court before they turn into a pumpkin at the end of their term? I think there\u2019s a 50\/50 chance it won\u2019t get there in time.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The reason that\u2019s significant is because if the next president, who we can only hope to God shows more of an understanding of the threat of climate change and more of a commitment to do something about it, they could repeal the repeal and reinstate the endangerment finding. You see the incredible significance of the clock right now. If Trump can\u2019t get this to the Supreme Court and win before he\u2019s done, the next president can erase all of this.<\/p>\n

DOERING: What\u2019s the second scenario?\u00a0<\/p>\n

PARENTEAU: The second scenario is Trump does get the thing to the Supreme Court before he\u2019s done, but he loses 5-4, the same way George W. Bush lost 5-4 in Massachusetts v. EPA.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This is a head-count exercise. You start with the three so-called liberal justices. It\u2019s pretty clear you do have their votes to uphold Massachusetts v. EPA. The Trump administration is counting on Chief Justice Roberts being in their corner, but the chief justice has said he thinks Massachusetts v. EPA is settled law, so you don\u2019t have his vote going in.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This story is funded by readers like you.<\/p>\n

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.<\/p>\n

Donate Now<\/a> <\/p>\n

You know you\u2019re going to get Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and probably Justice Gorsuch. You\u2019re probably going to get Justice Kavanaugh, because Kavanaugh has been very critical of EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act in the past. So there\u2019s four votes.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Where does the fifth vote come from? It comes down to Justice Barrett. She\u2019s the swing vote in this case, if it gets there, and I think from a decision that she rendered in a very important Clean Water Act case, she\u2019s going to have trouble seeing that if the science says this is a danger, if the Supreme Court, 19 years ago, said that EPA had the authority to regulate it, I don\u2019t think she\u2019s going to say, overrule it. That\u2019s why I think there\u2019s a 60-40 chance if it gets to the Supreme Court in time, Trump loses.<\/p>\n

DOERING: And the third scenario?\u00a0<\/p>\n

PARENTEAU: The third scenario is Trump wins in the Supreme Court\u2014God forbid, in my view, but I have to acknowledge that\u2019s definitely a possibility.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If that happens, then a future president can\u2019t do anything about it. That\u2019s the significance. Once the Supreme Court has ruled, EPA no longer has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Only Congress can reinstate that authority. A future president is hamstrung.\u00a0<\/p>\n

DOERING: Just to clarify, has the endangerment finding actually been revoked by this action by EPA, or does that not happen until the legal battles have been settled?<\/p>\n

PARENTEAU: Technically, here\u2019s what happens: The rule is published in the Federal Register, and then 60 days later, the repeal of the tailpipe standards takes effect. So we\u2019re still in a two-month window right now, but when that takes effect, it\u2019s automatic.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what I predict is going to happen in response to that. The attorneys general of California and Massachusetts have already announced, no surprise, they\u2019re going to challenge this, and I predict that the first thing they\u2019re going to do in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is to move for what we call a stay of the rule, which means put a pause on the rule while the case works its way out. I think they have a very strong case to do that.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This decision overturns again 19 years of regulation. It proposes to overturn a Supreme Court decision that\u2019s already on the books. I think the District of Columbia court is going to say a stay of this rule is entirely appropriate. That\u2019s a long-winded answer, but it means that the rule will take effect unless the D.C. Circuit puts a stay on it.<\/p>\n

DOERING: It sounds like this is really just the beginning of the process of repealing this finding.<\/p>\n

PARENTEAU: I would say so, and that\u2019s why I say I think it\u2019s going to take longer than three years to sort it out.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\tAbout This Story<\/p>\n

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That\u2019s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can\u2019t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We\u2019ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.<\/p>\n

Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.<\/p>\n

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don\u2019t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places? <\/p>\n

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.<\/p>\n

Thank you,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio\u2019s environmental news magazine, an interview by Jenni Doering with…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":483428,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[47],"tags":[11455,36270,34522,192,2286,16407,75925,31937,119911,203562,222726,13353,79,644],"class_list":{"0":"post-483427","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-air-pollution","9":"tag-clean-air-act","10":"tag-endangerment-finding","11":"tag-environment","12":"tag-environmental-protection-agency","13":"tag-epa","14":"tag-greenhouse-gas","15":"tag-greenhouse-gas-emissions","16":"tag-greenhouse-gases","17":"tag-living-on-earth","18":"tag-pat-parenteau","19":"tag-qa","20":"tag-science","21":"tag-trump-administration"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/483427","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=483427"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/483427\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/483428"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=483427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=483427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=483427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}