By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump announced the Environmental Protection Agency’s rescission of the endangerment finding, a legal determination used for nearly two decades to limit heat-trapping pollution. This repeal is projected to significantly alter most U.S. policies aimed at curbing climate change, including vehicle emissions standards. The finding, established in 2009, asserted that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare, a premise now disputed by the administration, which argues it lacked factual and legal basis. This action has been met with criticism from environmental groups who plan legal challenges, citing overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change harms.
Read the original article here
The news that the EPA has reversed a long-standing finding on climate change, effectively hindering its own ability to regulate emissions, feels like a particularly jarring misstep in an era that already feels rife with perplexing decisions. It’s as if, at a time when the scientific community is more unified than ever about the escalating reality of climate change, the very agency tasked with protecting our environment is choosing to step back from its responsibility. This move seems to strike at the core of what the EPA was established to do, creating a profound disconnect between its mission and its actions.
The rationale provided for this reversal, that CO2 has never been a pollutant and that this move will boost the coal industry, is frankly astonishing, especially when viewed against the backdrop of overwhelming scientific consensus. It’s difficult to reconcile the idea of a benevolent creator with a simultaneous willingness to seemingly disregard the well-being of the planet. This perspective suggests a profound misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate disregard, of the interconnectedness of our environment and the delicate balance that sustains it. The thought of future generations looking back on this period and labeling it a “modern dark age” doesn’t seem like hyperbole when confronted with such decisions.
The ambition to undo the achievements of previous administrations, while understandable in a political context, should not come at the expense of our planet’s health. The notion of resurrecting anything that impedes progress, particularly when it involves environmental protection, is concerning. It appears that certain political agendas are being pursued with a fervor that completely eclipses the need for scientific justification, leading to decisions that defy basic logic and common sense. The idea that a scientific finding can be simply repealed without any evidence to support the reversal is a stark illustration of this detachment from reality.
Ultimately, the question of whether the EPA is legally bound to follow specific, evidence-based protocols for such a reversal will likely end up being decided by the courts. This situation highlights a broader concern: a government that seems more inclined to regulate its citizens than to regulate the industries that have a significant impact on our shared environment. It feels as though the principles of running a government have been reduced to running it like a business, where citizens become mere instruments for profit and consumption, rather than valued members of a society with a shared responsibility for its future.
The echoes of past eras, when air quality was a far more pressing concern, serve as a stark reminder of the progress we’ve made and the potential for regression. The current rate of global warming, when compared to historical extinction events like the Permian-Triassic, is alarming. The Earth has experienced significant heating events in its past, but never at this accelerated pace. This rapid change, occurring over mere decades rather than millennia, poses an unprecedented threat to ecological systems and the planet’s biodiversity, making current actions that disregard these trends incredibly perilous.
The administration’s stated goal of fostering economic growth through these reversals, particularly by reviving industries like coal, appears to be a short-sighted approach. The long-term costs associated with unchecked climate change, including increased healthcare expenses due to pollution and the societal disruptions caused by extreme weather events, far outweigh any perceived short-term economic benefits. Furthermore, by hindering clean energy initiatives, the nation risks falling behind globally, ceding leadership in the burgeoning clean energy sector to other countries, which will ultimately impact economic competitiveness.
The question of whether individual states can still implement their own regulations for carbon emissions in the absence of federal guidance is critical. However, the absence of a unified national strategy significantly weakens the overall effort to combat climate change. It’s disheartening to witness decisions that seem to prioritize immediate financial gains for certain industries over the health and safety of communities and the long-term sustainability of the planet. The rhetoric surrounding these decisions, suggesting a lack of concern for environmental protection, unfortunately, aligns with a pattern of prioritizing corporate profits over public well-being.
The possibility that these decisions are driven by a belief that the consequences of climate change will be felt by future generations, rather than the current leaders, is a cynical yet plausible explanation. This mindset, where short-term financial interests trump long-term planetary health, is deeply troubling. The desire to leave a legacy of environmental destruction is a disturbing prospect. It’s a scenario where a small group of individuals, driven by a narrow set of priorities—wealth, corporations, and their own enrichment—seem to view everything else, including the environment and the well-being of the populace, as mere collateral damage.
The acceleration of what feels like backward progress is palpable, and the justifications for these environmental reversals are notably absent of any scientific backing. This makes the situation all the more infuriating for those who understand the gravity of the climate crisis. The notion that this is merely a partisan move, devoid of scientific merit, is a harsh but likely accurate assessment. When faced with such a stark reversal of established findings, and with the potential for such devastating consequences, it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that this represents a dangerous and perhaps even malicious approach to governance.