On Tuesday, President Trump's administration proposed revoking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "endangerment finding," a 2009 scientific finding that underpins U.S. policy on greenhouse gas emissions. By identifying the gases as a threat to public health and welfare, the finding provides the basis for many emissions regulations. Donald Wuebbles, a professor emeritus of climate, meteorology and atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, has been a leader of numerous national and international climate assessments, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also served as an assistant director in the U.S Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Obama. Wuebbles discussed the proposed repeal of the endangerment finding and its implications for policy and the environment with News Bureau biomedical sciences editor Liz Ahlberg Touchstone.
What is the endangerment finding?
The endangerment finding was an analysis by the EPA published in 2009 that found that human-related emissions of certain heat-trapping gases, referred to as greenhouse gases, could significantly endanger public health and welfare. That finding was based on an extensive series of peer-reviewed publications in major science journals and in national and international assessments of the science. Essentially, it means the EPA determined that the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, threaten current and future generations. The importance of this finding is that it was determined to be a crucial legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
How are regulations in the U.S. tied to this finding?
By linking the changes in climate to effects on the public health and welfare of the American people, the EPA was able to then justify using the Clean Air Act as a basis for limiting future emissions of those greenhouse gases. Since action to reduce emissions would largely mean transitioning our energy production and transportation systems away from the use of fossil fuels, those policies would otherwise require new legislation from the U.S. Congress. Such legislation is currently unlikely because the Republican Party opposes any action despite many members of Congress from both political parties telling me and other scientists privately that they understand the importance of this issue for our future.
What scientific basis does the administration have for repealing the endangerment finding?
The reality is, there is no real science basis for its repeal. The scientific evidence is very clear that our changing climate is almost entirely due to human activities, especially from the burning of fossil fuels along with some effects from land-use change. Through a series of reports using misleading and cherry-picked analysis, the administration is currently trying to paint a picture telling the American people that climate change is too uncertain and won't affect us all that much. Or like the new head of NASA did recently, saying climate change is too political - the science is just science, the politics come in when we have to decide to do something about it.
There does not appear to be any supportable basis for the appeal of the endangerment finding other than to support the continued use of oil, coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels. In fact, a number of economic analyses show that the costs of inaction on climate change are likely to be far greater than the costs of action.
What could happen to emissions regulations and standards in various industries if this finding were repealed?
Repealing the endangerment finding would not have much effect immediately on industry. The regulations and standards were still largely yet to be developed. However, the first step has been to promote the use of alternative, renewable energy sources - and the administration is also removing many of the existing incentives for moving to the use of alternative energy while doing everything it can to encourage the use of fossil fuels in the U.S.
The vast majority of companies recognize the importance of climate change and have significant concerns about the potential impacts of extreme weather events and sea-level rise on their assets and supply chains. This all leaves much uncertainty for companies as how to respond: Should they continue to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, or should they aim to appease this administration?
How could repeal affect the quality of life in the U.S.?
All Americans need to understand that climate change is already affecting us and will be affecting us much more in future decades unless we take action now both in terms of mitigation - reducing emissions - and adaptation, resilience to the unavoidable changes in our climate. The significant increase in extreme weather events resulting in over a billion dollars in damages has already affected all parts of the U.S. and has affected our economy. Repealing the endangerment finding would not benefit any of us except for the near-term financial gains of a few in the fossil fuel industry.
In addition, it is worth noting that eliminating our burning of fossil fuels would largely eliminate human emissions of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide and other pollutants that result in concerns about air quality and would therefore save thousands of American lives annually - this was the basis for the Clean Air Act in the first place!
We need to recognize that climate change is one of the most important issues facing humanity, not only for us, but especially for our children and grandchildren. Making the transition away from using fossil fuels is not easy, but it is doable, and we need to meet that challenge.
