Philadelphia, PA — The plan to dismantle significant climate policies under the Trump administration is poised to confront legal obstacles, particularly through an effort to rescind the endangerment finding established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009. This determination identified six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, as contributors to climate change and a threat to public health.
Since the issuance of the endangerment finding, scientific evidence has only intensified, supported by extensive reports from numerous researchers globally. These insights have underscored the risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions, yet the EPA’s current proposal to rescind the finding largely stems from a report produced by a small group within the Department of Energy, known as the Climate Working Group. This group consists of five members who have voiced skepticism about mainstream climate science, a point emphasized by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who selected them for the task.
Critics of the report argue it selectively uses information and misrepresents academic studies. Some scientists have voiced concerns that their work has been misunderstood or misquoted by the group. Observers note that rigorous standards typically required for federal scientific dissemination appear to be bypassed in this case.
The challenges ahead for the administration are compounded by potential violations of several federal laws. The Information Quality Act demands that federal agencies ensure the accuracy and objectivity of disseminated scientific information. It also mandates public access to request corrections following the release of final reports to maintain confidence in the data.
Further complicating matters, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) necessitates transparent processes in the formation of advisory groups, ensuring a balanced representation of viewpoints. The Climate Working Group’s establishment has raised questions about compliance with this law, as the process did not involve public nominations or comments regarding its membership.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires consistent rulemaking processes and public participation, prohibiting arbitrary decision-making. This Act emphasizes that agencies must thoroughly examine relevant data prior to enacting policies. These requirements ensure the public can engage meaningfully in discussions affecting their environment and health.
Moreover, the EPA is obligated by the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act to form a Science Advisory Board, which must review relevant scientific information when the agency contemplates regulatory changes. Currently, the board, which plays a critical role in evaluating scientific and technical data, is inactive, following the dismissal of all its members in January 2025.
As public comment periods for the EPA’s proposal and the Energy Department report are set to begin, the agency faces mounting pressure to adhere to lawful procedures. Comments on the EPA’s plan to rescind greenhouse gas vehicle standards and the endangerment finding are open until mid-September, while the Energy Department will accept comments on its report until early September.
Independent entities, including the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, have announced their intention to conduct a rapid review of the health impacts linked to greenhouse gas emissions, pledging to submit feedback as part of the public discourse.
Given the legal complexities surrounding the Energy Department’s report, the administration may need to reconsider its strategy. Should the EPA choose to proceed with rescinding the endangerment finding based on this potentially flawed report, it could face extensive legal challenges that would delay policy implementation.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI. The people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by contacting email contact@publiclawlibrary.org.