Lawsuit: EPA revoking greenhouse gas finding risks “thousands of avoidable deaths”

Source: Ars Technica

“Deadly Serious”

EPA sued for abandoning its mission to protect public health

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency was accused of abandoning its mission to protect public health after repealing an “endangerment finding” that has served as the basis for federal climate‑change regulations for 17 years.

Plaintiffs

The suit was brought by more than a dozen environmental and health groups, including:

• American Public Health Association
• American Lung Association
• Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
• Clean Air Council
• Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
• Sierra Club
• Union of Concerned Scientists

The groups have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the EPA decision, which also eliminated requirements controlling greenhouse‑gas emissions in new cars and trucks.

“Undercutting the ability of the federal government to tackle the largest source of climate pollution is deadly serious,”
— Meredith Hankins, legal director for federal climate at NRDC (quoted in an EDF roundup)

Context

• The Trump administration’s repeal is portrayed as anti‑science and an illegal move to benefit the fossil‑fuel industry, despite extensive evidence of the deadly consequences of unchecked pollution and climate‑change‑induced floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes.
• The EPA’s final rule summary claimed the action is “the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history and will save Americans over $1.3 trillion by 2055.”
• A related fact sheet framed the decision as “choosing consumer choice over climate‑change zealotry every time.”

Criticism

Critics quickly slammed the administration’s economic arguments:

• The Guardian reported that any savings from cheaper vehicles or reduced charging‑infrastructure costs would be offset by $1.4 trillion in additional expenses (fuel purchases, vehicle repair and maintenance, insurance, traffic congestion, and noise).
• The EPA’s analysis allegedly ignores public‑health costs, according to the suing groups.

“Nobody but Big Oil profits from Trump trashing climate science and making cars and trucks guzzle and pollute more,”
— David Pettit, attorney at the CBD’s Climate Law Institute

“Consumers will pay more to fill up, and our skies and oceans will fill up with more pollution.”

If the court sides with the EPA, “people everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” warned Peter Zalzal, EDF’s associate vice president of clean‑air strategies.

Sources

• Lawsuit filing (PDF)
• EPA endangerment finding repeal article (Ars Technica)
• EPA final rule summary
• EPA fact sheet (PDF)
• The Guardian report
• Euro News tracker on Trump’s climate comments

EPA Argues Climate‑Change Evidence Is “Out of Scope”

For environmentalists, suing the EPA was a risky but necessary move. By challenging the agency, they risk a court overturning the 2009 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to conduct the initial endangerment analysis and to regulate any pollution found from greenhouse gases.

That reversal is precisely what the Trump administration has been seeking, hoping the case will reach a now‑more‑conservative Supreme Court that may be less inclined to read the Clean Air Act as broadly as the 2009 Court did.

“Environmentalists must challenge this,” said William Piermattei, managing director of the Environmental Law Program at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. “If they didn’t, they’d be agreeing that we should not regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, full stop.” He added that “a majority of the public does not agree with that statement at all.”
—The New York Times

Background

• 2010 EPA finding – Since 2010, the EPA has concluded that the scientific basis for stating that “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and future U.S. generations is robust, voluminous, and compelling.” The evidence base has only grown since then, according to the groups filing the lawsuit.
  Source: Federal Register, 2010‑08‑13

• Trump administration’s stance – During his first term, President Trump left the endangerment finding in place, perhaps assuming the evidence was irrefutable. In his current term, he argues that the evidence should be set aside so courts can decide whether Congress must weigh in on “major questions” with significant political and economic implications, thereby checking the EPA’s authority.

EPA’s Current Argument

In its comments to the public, the EPA contends that evidence of climate change is “out of scope” because the agency has not repealed the basis of the original finding. Instead, the EPA claims it is merely challenging its own authority to regulate the auto industry for harmful emissions, asserting that only Congress has that authority.

“The Clean Air Act does not provide EPA statutory authority to prescribe motor‑vehicle emission standards for the purpose of addressing global climate‑change concerns,” the EPA wrote. “In the absence of such authority, the Endangerment Finding is not valid, and EPA cannot retain the regulations that resulted from it.”
—EPA Comments (PDF)

What’s at Stake?

Whether courts accept the EPA’s “out‑of‑scope” argument could determine if the Supreme Court’s prior decision— which compelled the endangerment finding—will be overturned. If that occurs, future administrations may struggle to issue a new endangerment finding, and Congress could become the primary venue for preserving climate‑change protections.

EPA Accused of Abandoning Its Mission

By ignoring science, the EPA risks eroding public trust, according to Hana Vizcarra, a senior lawyer at the nonprofit Earthjustice, which is representing several groups in the litigation.

“With this action, EPA flips its mission on its head,” Vizcarra said. “It abandons its core mandate to protect human health and the environment to boost polluting industries and attempts to rewrite the law in order to do so.”

Groups appear confident that the courts will consider the science. Joanne Spalding, director of the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program, noted that early‑2000s litigation from the Sierra Club brought about the original EPA protections. She vowed that the Sierra Club would continue fighting to keep them.

“People should not be forced to suffer for this administration’s blind allegiance to the fossil‑fuel industry and corporate polluters,” Spalding said. “This shortsighted rollback is blatantly unlawful and their efforts to force this upon the American people will fail.”

Ankush Bansal, board president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, warned that courts cannot afford to ignore the evidence. The EPA’s “devastating decision” goes “against the science and testimony of countless scientists, health‑care professionals, and public‑health practitioners,” Bansal said. If upheld, the long‑term consequences could seemingly bury courts in future legal battles.

“It will result in direct harm to the health of Americans throughout the country, particularly children, older adults, those with chronic illnesses, and other vulnerable populations—rural to urban, red and blue, of all races and incomes,” Bansal said. “The increased exposure to harmful pollutants and other greenhouse‑gas emissions from fossil‑fuel production and consumption will make America sicker, not healthier, less prosperous, not more, for generations to come.”

---

Author

Ashley Belanger – senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, tracking the social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. Chicago‑based journalist with 20 years of experience.

---

Comments: 16

---