{"id":368231,"date":"2025-03-02T09:41:17","date_gmt":"2025-03-02T08:41:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=368231"},"modified":"2025-03-02T09:41:18","modified_gmt":"2025-03-02T08:41:18","slug":"the-process-of-rescinding-the-endangerment-finding-has-begun","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=368231","title":{"rendered":"The Process Of Rescinding The Endangerment Finding Has Begun"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Manhattan Contrarian<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Francis Menton<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As discussed in a couple of recent posts here<\/a> and here<\/a>, the so-called Endangerment Finding (EF) was an EPA regulatory action early in the Obama Administration (December 2009) that now provides the foundation for all government efforts to restrict and suppress the use of hydrocarbons in our economy. In one of his first day Executive Orders (\u201cUnleashing American Energy\u201d<\/a>), President Trump directed the incoming EPA Administrator to submit, within 30 days, \u201crecommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator\u2019s findings.\u201d<\/em> Lee Zeldin was then confirmed and sworn in as EPA Administrator on January 29; but the 30th day after the EO, February 19, passed without any public news about a recommendation on the EF.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today there is news. Apparently The Washington Post was the first outlet to break the story; but that piece is behind their paywall, so I won\u2019t link to it. Fortunately, multiple outlets not behind paywall promptly posted slightly rewritten versions of the WaPo story. Here is a version from Politico<\/a>, and here is a version from the Associated Press as it appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To no one\u2019s surprise, the news is that Zeldin has recommended reconsideration of the EF. Apparently the recommendation was made a few days ago in a private memorandum. Here is the AP\/AJC version:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a potential landmark action, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency has privately urged the Trump administration to reconsider a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action against climate change. In a report to the White House, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called for a rewrite of the agency’s finding that determined planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If this was a private memorandum, how did the story turn up in The Washington Post and other outlets? The answer is, of course, anonymous leaks. The AP\/AJC article says there were \u201cfour people who were briefed on the matter but spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.\u201d <\/em>No surprise there \u2014 I would expect that 90% or more of the holdover staff at EPA are hostile to the new administration and happy to do whatever they can to undermine it. But note this from a little further down in the same story:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump, at a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, said Zeldin told him he is moving to eliminate about 65% of the EPA’s workforce. \u201cA lot of people that weren\u2019t doing their job, they were just obstructionist,” Trump said.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s EPA Administrators should have done that in his first four year term. But it\u2019s never too late.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps most notable about the news stories is the haughty and dismissive reaction of the usual suspects on the left. For example, Politico gets quotes from David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis decision ignores science and the law,\u201d David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. \u201cAbdicating EPA\u2019s clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.\u201d . . . Vickie Patton, the Environmental Defense Fund\u2019s general counsel, said any move to undo the finding \u201cwould be reckless, unlawful, and ignore EPA\u2019s fundamental responsibility to protect Americans from destructive climate pollution. We will vigorously oppose it.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly, the environmental groups and Democrat-led states will do everything they can to oppose the roll-back of the EF; and they have essentially infinite funds to litigate. So, will the rescission be a difficult thing to do, and\/or likely to fail in court? Much of the discussion in the two linked pieces, and in others I have read, dwells on the heavy lift necessary to undo a regulation that has gone through the \u201cnotice and comment\u201d rule-making process. For example, a Bloomberg piece here<\/a> (behind paywall) presents rescission of the EF as an enormous challenge:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It could take years for the EPA to go through a required rulemaking process to unwind the endangerment finding, and even then, it might not survive inevitable legal challenges.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

They\u2019re trying to scare the administration off, but I don\u2019t think they are right, or that it will work. First, the idea that the rule-making process will \u201ctake years\u201d is ridiculous. Yes, it is a cumbersome process. But the Obama people took office on January 20, 2009, went through the full rule-making process, and published the EF in final form on December 15, 2009 \u2014 less than 11 months later. I don\u2019t know any reason why the Trump people can\u2019t meet the same schedule or even improve on it by a few months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the scientific papers to use to support the rescission are all easily at hand. A couple of junior people with access to the internet and Google can easily come up with several hundred papers published since 2009 and supporting the no-danger position. As I laid out in my January 26 post<\/a>, most important are papers showing no increasing trends in severe weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc.). There are very many of these.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lacking any convincing evidence of increases in severe weather, the enviros are left with only a claim that gradual warming over the course of the next century will be some kind of big problem. But EPA can respond that the costs and risks of a forced energy transition to an untested system pose far, far greater dangers to human health and welfare: blackouts in the dead of winter when all heat is mandated to be electric; massive fires at huge grid scale battery installations used to back up wind and solar electricity; toxic gases from such fires imperiling large urban populations; leaks and explosions impacting hydrogen infrastructure; electric cars and buses running out of charge on freezing cold days and stranding the occupants; and so on and on. How about the risk of large numbers of people losing access to electricity or to home heat or to automobile transportation because they can\u2019t afford the cost?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point of all these things is that they are not a question of the \u201cscience\u201d of global warming. They are a question of making a judgment call trading off one set of dangers and risks against another. No amount of appeals to the authority of \u201cscientists\u201d preaching global warming alarm can even address the question of the risks from the forced adoption of the unproven new energy technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, get to work, EPA! I want to see the EF gone by Thanksgiving. Then we\u2019ll have something to really be thankful for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As discussed in a couple of recent posts here and here, the so-called Endangerment Finding (EF) was an EPA regulatory action early in the Obama Administration (December 2009) that now provides the foundation for all government efforts to restrict and suppress the use of hydrocarbons in our economy. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":368234,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691829997,691833597,691833596,691833292,691833091,691818087],"class_list":["post-368231","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-carbon-dioxide-co","tag-democrat-led-states","tag-endangerment-finding-ef","tag-epa-environmental-protection-agency","tag-epa-administrator-lee-zeldin","tag-global-warming","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0greenhouse-plant-growth.jpg?fit=1200%2C871&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1xNd","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":375218,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=375218","url_meta":{"origin":368231,"position":0},"title":"Archive: Emails, Privilege Logs Suggest EPA\u2019s Endangerment Finding Was Unlawfully Predetermined, Review Needed","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/16\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Amid\u00a0reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering the December 2009 \u201cEndangerment Finding\u201d regarding greenhouse gases,[1]\u00a0a\u00a0recanvassing of emails obtained in the infamous \u201cRichard Windsor\u201d Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought over a dozen years ago by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) against the Agency[2]\u00a0leads to a troubling conclusion:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)\"","block_context":{"text":"Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=competitive-enterprise-institute-cei"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Epa-Symbol.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Epa-Symbol.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Epa-Symbol.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Epa-Symbol.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Epa-Symbol.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":375767,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=375767","url_meta":{"origin":368231,"position":1},"title":"Endangerment Finding endangers energy & freedom","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/19\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"One of the Trump administration\u2019s most important executive actions is the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s review of the Obama EPA\u2019s determination that carbon dioxide (CO2) endangers our health.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/00ANOVO-que-es-economi-circular-v4_01.jpg?fit=1200%2C601&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/00ANOVO-que-es-economi-circular-v4_01.jpg?fit=1200%2C601&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/00ANOVO-que-es-economi-circular-v4_01.jpg?fit=1200%2C601&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/00ANOVO-que-es-economi-circular-v4_01.jpg?fit=1200%2C601&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/00ANOVO-que-es-economi-circular-v4_01.jpg?fit=1200%2C601&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":427181,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=427181","url_meta":{"origin":368231,"position":2},"title":"EPA endangerment finding repeal & Potomac River sewage crisis","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/20\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"In Episode 542 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses two trending news stories: the repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding and the Trump administration stepping in to resolve the Potomac River sewage crisis that began on January 19th, 2026. Tune in to learn more!","rel":"","context":"In \"Advance Historic Deregulation\u2060\"","block_context":{"text":"Advance Historic Deregulation\u2060","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=advance-historic-deregulation%e2%81%a0"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0CFACT-EPA.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0CFACT-EPA.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0CFACT-EPA.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0CFACT-EPA.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0CFACT-EPA.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":363305,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=363305","url_meta":{"origin":368231,"position":3},"title":"The Endangerment Finding: It Looks Like Trump 2.0 Will Be Much More Fun Than Trump 1.0","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/25\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The first couple of days of the new Trump administration have seen the President sign a blizzard of Executive Orders. These provide more material than a humble solo blogger like myself can ever comment on comprehensively. So I\u2019ll just have to start with one particular item that I am deeply\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Screenshot-2025-01-25-144325.png?fit=1199%2C901&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Screenshot-2025-01-25-144325.png?fit=1199%2C901&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Screenshot-2025-01-25-144325.png?fit=1199%2C901&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Screenshot-2025-01-25-144325.png?fit=1199%2C901&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Screenshot-2025-01-25-144325.png?fit=1199%2C901&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":374821,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=374821","url_meta":{"origin":368231,"position":4},"title":"Reversing the Endangerment Finding: Burying the Union of Concerned Scientists Case Against It","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/11\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Trump EPA is planning to reconsider the 2009 Obama EPA Endangerment Finding (EF) that labeled greenhouse gas emissions as a threat to public health. Here is the first effort by a leftist group against that.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/00Screenshot-2025-04-11-190119.png?fit=1200%2C659&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/00Screenshot-2025-04-11-190119.png?fit=1200%2C659&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/00Screenshot-2025-04-11-190119.png?fit=1200%2C659&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/00Screenshot-2025-04-11-190119.png?fit=1200%2C659&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/00Screenshot-2025-04-11-190119.png?fit=1200%2C659&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425719,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425719","url_meta":{"origin":368231,"position":5},"title":"Pre-Cooked and Politically Timed: How Obama\u00b4s EPA Faked the Endangerment Finding to Meet Copenhagen Deadlines","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/11\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"In December 2009, under the Obama administration, the EPA issued the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Clean Air Act Section 202(a). This concluded that six greenhouse gases (CO\u2082, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, and SF\u2086) qualify as air pollutants that endanger public health and welfare,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-183050.png?fit=1127%2C941&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-183050.png?fit=1127%2C941&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-183050.png?fit=1127%2C941&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-183050.png?fit=1127%2C941&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-183050.png?fit=1127%2C941&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368231","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=368231"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368231\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":368236,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368231\/revisions\/368236"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/368234"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=368231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=368231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=368231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}