The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under the Trump administration, officially rescinded the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding on Feb. 12. The finding is the scientific determination that six greenhouse gases threaten public health and has been the foundation for years of legislation on automobile emission regulations.
The History of the Endangerment Finding
The 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding originated from the 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Following the ruling, the EPA was required to investigate and determine if greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare.
The EPA signed the Endangerment Finding on Dec. 7, 2009, concluding that GHGs threaten public health and welfare and that emissions from motor vehicles contribute to this pollution. Following this decision, the Endangerment Finding has been used to set national regulations for vehicle emissions under the Clean Air Act.
The rescinding of the Endangerment Finding comes after President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20 that the EPA must submit recommendations on the finding’s “legality and continuing applicability.”
Trump announced the deregulatory action with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, calling it a “historical” choice to aid and bring power to Americans. The EPA stated in a press release that this action “restores consumer choice, makes more affordable vehicles available for American families, and decreases the cost of living on all products by lowering the cost of trucks.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a briefing, “This will be the largest deregulatory action in American history, and it will save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations.”
According to Leavitt, the savings will come from reduced costs for new vehicles. With removed federal emissions regulations, “the EPA [projects] average per vehicle savings of more than $2,400 for popular light-duty cars, SUVs and trucks.”
Cornell Professors Respond
Several Cornell professors warned of harmful consequences following the rescinding of the Endangerment Finding.
Prof. Chris Schaffer, biomedical engineering, previously worked for Sen. Edward Markey (D-M.A.) as a science policy advisor.
“We're already on a poor trajectory regarding climate change, both in this country and globally,” Schaffer said on the rescission of the Endangerment Finding. “And this takes us even further off of an already poor trajectory.”
Schaffer also argued that there should be more of a discussion between experts in science and government when it comes to environmental policy.
“I think there's fault on both sides — both government officials, not looking enough to scientists, and scientists not being sufficiently engaged with government officials,” Schaffer said. “I think there's a lot that folks could do on both sides to improve the use of the fruits of the scientific enterprise in setting policies that would improve lives.”
Prof. Robert Howarth, ecology and environmental biology, is renowned for his research on the environmental impact of shale gas and liquefied natural gas, which has been highly influential to U.S. policy.
Howarth described the Trump administration’s incentive to rescind the Endangerment Finding as “purely political.”
“It doesn't even make sense economically,” Howarth explained. “Climate change is damaging the economy now. It's hurting agricultural productivity globally, and in the United States, damage from storms is massive. It's going to get worse.”
Howarth also pointed to Trump’s ties to oil and gas money. During the 2024 presidential election, Trump asked oil industry executives to donate $1 billion to his campaign. Reportedly, he told oil executives that this donation would be a “deal” because he would scrap President Biden’s environmental policies regulating and taxing the oil industry.
Prof. Allison Chatrchyan, law, is an active leader of environmental law in the Cornell community, having led Cornell Delegations to the annual Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change since 2015.
Chatrchyan said that “revoking the Endangerment Finding is like taking a misguided sledgehammer to the Clean Air Act.”
Chatrchyan warned that while the Trump administration claims that the rescission of the finding will aid the U.S. economy, it will actually benefit the oil and gas industry.
“Because fuel efficiency standards may change, American drivers may eventually pay more for gas to drive their cars if they are less fuel efficient,” she said.
Additionally, Chatrchyan emphasized that the rescission of the Endangerment Finding would not bolster the American economy as the Trump administration claims, but would rather do more harm.
“Dirtier air is actually going to cost the economy because we will have higher hospitalizations from pollution,” Chatrchyan said. “Pollution causes economic harm.”
Hope for the Future
Chatrchyan added that there is already a large push against the rescission around the U.S.
“The attorneys general of California and Massachusetts have already indicated their intent to challenge the rule,” she said.
Additionally, a coalition of health and environmental groups is suing the EPA and its Administrator, Zeldin, arguing that the repeal is unscientific and directly harms public health and the environment. Organizations include the American Public Health Association, Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club.
Ultimately, Chatrchyan said that the rescission of the Endangerment Finding points to a broader issue of the politicization of environmental issues. Howarth shared a similar sentiment.
“The congressman who represented me back in the 1990s was a Republican. He chaired the House of Science Oversight Committee,” Howarth said. “He took climate change very seriously. It's been politicized now, so it's become, if you're Republican, climate change is a hoax; if you're Democrat, you believe in it.”
Chatrchyan also pointed to previous examples of Republican presidents who were strongly supportive of environmental protection, including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Teddy Roosevelt.
When asked about actions that concerned Cornell community members could take, Chatrchyan said, “It’s incredibly important to become aware of these issues … to really encourage young people and everyone, really, to stay on track of these things.”
Chatrchyan added that people can submit comments directly to the government when changes to laws are proposed.
“If there are newspaper articles written that say the Trump administration is proposing to change this regulation, it has to go through a public comment period,” she said. “Citizens, students, anyone, can submit a comment.”
Finally, Chatrchyan encouraged students who are interested in learning more about these environmental issues to take her fall semester course, LAW 4443: “International Environmental Law and Policy,” or her spring semester course, LAW 4330: “Environmental Law and Policy.”
Both Chatrchyan and Howarth emphasized the importance of active participation in the political process.
“I think the most important thing is to participate in the political process, to vote for candidates who take this seriously and they're gonna act on it, and push politicians to do so,” said Howarth.
Andrea Kim is a Sun Contributor and member of the Class of 2028. She can be reached at ack247@cornell.edu.
