What's happening? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed removing the US government's authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants, which would threaten key climate protections under the Clean Air Act. The proposal targets the 2009 “endangerment finding”, which underpins federal limits on emissions from power plants, vehicles and oil infrastructure. If finalised, the change could unravel existing rules and limit future administrations’ climate action. Critics warn the move defies scientific consensus and increases risks to public health as climate-related disasters intensify. Legal challenges are expected, and energy firms remain divided. The agency aims to finalise the rule by year-end. (Bloomberg)

Why does this matter? The Endangerment Finding originates from a 2007 US Supreme Court decision that identified GHGs as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, requiring the EPA to regulate them if found harmful. In 2009, the EPA formally issued the Endangerment Finding, which allowed the federal government to set limits on greenhouse gases, including CO2 and methane. Revoking the finding would represent one of the Trump administration’s most sweeping actions to date to undermine the US’ ability to tackle climate change.  

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin first called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a broader package of rollbacks, which would reverse or repeal 31 major environmental regulations, covering areas such as clean air, clean water and climate change. Speaking on a podcast, Zeldin said abolishing the finding would “be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America”. He also claims that the move, if finalised, would save US firms $54bn in annual environmental compliance costs.

However, legal experts and industry groups have warned that scrapping the rule could create regulatory chaos, deterring investment and increasing litigation risks. Companies that have already spent billions complying with emissions limits fear legal and market uncertainty. The proposal is also broader than anticipated, affecting tailpipe standards, air conditioning efficiency and battery monitoring/durability. While some trade bodies support deregulation, others, including the US Chamber of Commerce, remain cautious.

Meanwhile, environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said the move “denies reality” and that the Trump administration does not appear to consider emissions as a driving force behind disasters such as heatwaves and deadly floods. NRDC Executive Director, Christy Goldfuss, called the proposal “mind-boggling, illegal and cynical”, adding that if it is pushed through, then it would launch a lawsuit against the EPA.  

Concurrently, the US Department of Energy (DOE) issued a report evaluating current peer-reviewed literature and government data regarding the impact of GHGs on the climate. It argues that warming linked to CO2 “appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed.” It goes on to suggest that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere promote plant growth, improve agricultural yields and neutralise ocean alkalinity – in other words Ocean acidification, as Inside Climate News points out.  

Climate scientists were immediately concerned by the report, calling it “antiscientific”, “deceptive” and “cherry-picked”. University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media Director Michael Mann said the small number of authors – all selected by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and known climate science deniers – had “constructed a deeply misleading antiscientific narrative, built on deceptive arguments, misrepresented datasets, and distortion of actual scientific understanding.”  

The DOE is seeking comments on the report until 2 September to gather input from interested parties, including industry, government agencies, research laboratories, academia and other stakeholders. Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler, who has heavily criticised the report, said mainstream climate scientists should participate despite the Trump administration being likely to disregard their responses. He noted that the report will almost certainly be a target for legal action, meaning that any information provided could be used in the litigation process.  

The EPA’s proposed repeal of the endangerment finding, alongside the DOE’s climate report, represents a major shift away from science-based climate governance. These efforts risk weakening federal regulatory power, increasing legal uncertainty and undermining the US response to accelerating climate and public health threats.

‍