The Trump Administration recently rescinded the central scientific finding that’s the basis of much of the nation’s climate pollution rules under the Clean Air Act.
The endangerment finding is a 2009 scientific finding that six particular greenhouse gases cause significant harm to human health.
“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in a statement announcing the change. “Referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’ the Endangerment Finding is now eliminated. The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream.”
Richard Keller is the Robert Terrell Professor and Chair of the Department of Medical History and Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.
He says the science hasn’t changed in a way that the endangerment finding is no longer accurate, in fact, it’s the opposite.
“All of the science has backed the endangerment finding, and more, indeed, indicating that climate change is something that poses extreme potential harm to human health, indeed actual harm to human health,” said Keller.
Some that climate change driven impacts to human health include things like a longer breeding period for ticks and mosquitoes, which leads to more chances for vector borne diseases to spread.
Heat is another big one. Keller pointed to 2024 National Weather Service report that of all adverse weather events, extreme heat was responsible for 40% of weather-related fatalities.
“But if you look over the past 10 years, that number increases to 60%,” said Keller. “So this is a problem that's already bad where heat is already far and away the leading cause of death among all adverse weather events, and now it's just getting worse and worse. That's happening increasingly in places in the north that we thought were previously immune to these kinds of crises.”
Keller says with the endangerment finding pulled, there’s no incentive for cities or manufacturers to focus and support clean energy.
He gave the example of the auto industry.
“Basically, all emission standards for cars and trucks, as just one example, are just null and void,” said Keller. “This might mean cheaper manufacture. It might mean car prices may go down slightly, but there's really no incentive for automakers to produce low or zero emission vehicles.”
There’s also no incentive for communities to invest in infrastructure to support electric vehicles, like charging stations.
Combined with U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement or the recent order that federal agencies need to stop considering the economic damage of climate change, Keller says it will ultimately lead to increased air pollution and increase the dangers of climate change.
“This means things like more frequent, more intense and longer lasting hurricane seasons, higher rates of flooding in vulnerable areas, like, for example, in North Carolina, which everyone thought was a climate haven before what happened in Asheville last year,” said Keller. “And really the shrinking of those kinds of climate havens, places like Wisconsin, where we always thought we were safe, are becoming increasingly vulnerable to climate change.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is being sued by more than a dozen health and environmental groups over its decision to rescind the endangerment finding.
