A coalition of health and environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday over the reversal of a crucial scientific determination that has served as the foundation for U.S. efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.
Last week, the EPA finalized a rule that revoked a 2009 government declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which established that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. This finding, established during the Obama administration, forms the legal basis for most climate regulations under the U.S. Clean Air Act, covering vehicles, power plants, and other sources of pollution contributing to global warming.
The removal of this determination eliminates greenhouse gas emission standards for automobiles and trucks and opens the door to potential rollbacks of climate regulations affecting stationary sources like power plants and oil facilities, according to experts.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that the EPA’s rescission of the endangerment finding is illegal. It asserts that the 2009 finding supported practical measures to reduce climate pollution from vehicles, among other sources. The coalition behind the legal challenge emphasized that the clean vehicle standards introduced by the Biden administration were expected to result in significant carbon emission reductions, saving lives and reducing fuel costs for Americans.
Brian Lynk, a senior attorney at the Environmental Law & Policy Center, pointed out that after nearly two decades of scientific backing for the 2009 finding, the EPA’s claim that the science is now incorrect lacks credibility. He warned that the decision to reverse the finding would create immediate uncertainty for businesses, lead to prolonged legal disputes, and destabilize federal climate regulations.
The lawsuit was jointly filed by several groups, including the American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, and Sierra Club, challenging the EPA’s action. U.S. President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the repeal, arguing that it would alleviate burdensome regulations that they claimed had hindered sectors of the American economy.
Environmental activists criticized the repeal as a significant setback in the country’s efforts to address climate change. They emphasized that the evidence supporting the endangerment finding had only strengthened over the past 17 years, underscoring the importance of maintaining climate regulations to combat the growing threats posed by rising global temperatures.
The EPA’s legal obligation under the Clean Air Act is to regulate emissions of any air pollutant that could endanger public health or welfare. Following a Supreme Court ruling in 2007, which classified greenhouse gases as air pollutants, the EPA was directed to assess whether these gases posed a threat to human health and welfare based on scientific evidence. The subsequent 2009 endangerment finding paved the way for emissions standards for vehicles, which were later expanded to cover other sources of pollution.
Advocates warned that scrapping the vehicle standards and the endangerment finding could lead to higher gas prices and increased fuel expenses for Americans. They criticized the EPA’s actions as a failure to fulfill its mandate to safeguard public health under the Clean Air Act. Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, accused the EPA of prioritizing falsehoods over facts and disregarding the public interest and scientific consensus in its decision-making.
Goldman highlighted the alarming rise in heat-trapping emissions and global temperatures, attributing these trends to the burning of fossil fuels, which have severe consequences for both people and economies worldwide.
