By I. Edwards HealthDay Reporter<\/b>
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
WEDNESDAY, July 30, 2025 (HealthDay News) \u2014 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is looking to remove the legal underpinning for most regulations against climate change.<\/p>\n
If approved, the EPA\u2019s proposal would rescind the 2009 decision that set forth a legal basis to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants. Known as the “endangerment finding,” it allowed the EPA to limit emissions from vehicles, power plants, and oil and gas companies under the Clean Air Act.<\/p>\n
The new proposal argues that Congress didn’t give the EPA permission in the Clean Air Act to regulate these emissions and that the agency essentially overstepped its power.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf finalized, today\u2019s announcement would amount to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States,\u201d EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin<\/a> said, as reported by The Washington Post<\/em>.<\/p>\n The EPA issued the endangerment finding in 2009 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane are air pollutants.<\/p>\n The finding said these gases endanger public health and welfare, allowing the EPA to set rules to limit them. These rules have led to stricter standards for car emissions and limits on pollution from power plants.<\/p>\n Former EPA adviser Zealan Hoover<\/a> told The Post <\/em>that the new proposal was “not just an attack on science but on common sense.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe National Climate Assessment provides over 2,000 pages of detailed evidence that climate change harms our health and welfare, but you can also ask the millions of Americans who have lost their homes and livelihoods to extreme fires, floods and storms that are only getting worse,” Hoover explained.<\/p>\n A spokesman for Ford said the automaker supports clearer rules and hopes for \u201ca single, stable standard\u201d that helps reduce emissions while protecting manufacturing jobs.<\/p>\n Zeldin said the agency still supports clean air and water but wants to balance environmental protection with economic growth, The Post<\/em> reported.<\/p>\n Others predicted the EPA\u2019s legal arguments won’t hold up in court.<\/p>\n \u201cThey think this is a holy grail to get rid of the whole thing in one fell swoop as opposed to having to weaken regulations one by one,\u201d Richard Revesz<\/a>, a law professor at New York University, told The Post.<\/em><\/p>\n He said he was surprised by the EPA’s arguments, which he characterized as \u201chaphazardly thrown together.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThey just kind of pile it on, maybe hoping that one of them will stick,\u201d he told The Post<\/em>.<\/p>\n Others pointed out that the EPA\u2019s proposal challenges widely accepted science. For example, it disputes reports by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which many scientists view as the global standard.<\/p>\n Rachel Cleetus<\/a>, a climate expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said, \u201cThey are fringe arguments. They do not have credibility, and they go against the established science.\u201d<\/p>\n The EPA\u2019s move dovetails with a separate report from the U.S. Department of Energy. That report claimed that “CO2<\/sub>-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed\u201d and \u201cU.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate.\u201d<\/p>\n But critics say the costs of climate-related disasters and health issues far outweigh the savings from cutting regulations.<\/p>\n Under former President Joe Biden<\/a>, the EPA estimated emissions rules would save $1 trillion through 2055, in part by reducing hospital visits and early deaths.<\/p>\n If the proposed rule is finalized and survives court challenges, it could limit how future presidents respond to fossil fuel emissions.<\/p>\n David Doniger<\/a> is a legal expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council.<\/p>\n \u201cThe law unambiguously includes greenhouse gases as air pollutants, and the law unambiguously makes it clear that the endangerment and contribution findings limit that to public health and science issues, not to broad economic and policy issues,\u201d he told The Post.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re asking the American people who are living through wildfires, floods, hurricanes, heat domes and so on, not to believe what they\u2019re going through, not to believe their own eyes,\u201d Doniger continued. \u201cAt some point what they\u2019re claiming is going to appear to people to be mind-bogglingly false and out of touch.\u201d<\/p>\n More information<\/strong><\/p>\n The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has more about the Clean Air Act<\/a>. <\/p>\n