By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On December 22, 2024, as the sun set behind gas flares at the Dora Oil Refinery Complex, a significant shift occurred in U.S. environmental policy. The White House announced that the Environmental Protection Agency would formally revoke its 2009 endangerment finding. This critical scientific determination, which established that greenhouse gases pose a risk to public health and welfare, is the bedrock of federal climate regulations. The rescission, described as the largest deregulatory action in American history, is anticipated to eliminate regulations on emissions from the transportation sector and represents a major rollback of climate change mitigation efforts.
Read the original article here
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appears poised to dismantle the very foundation of its climate change regulations, the “endangerment finding.” This pivotal determination, which has long served as the scientific bedrock for policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, is now under threat. Effectively, this move signals a potential departure from acknowledging that these gases pose a significant risk to public health and welfare. It’s a rather stark shift, one that seems to disregard the established scientific consensus on the matter, and it leaves many wondering about the future of environmental protection in the United States.
This proposed revocation raises serious concerns about the trajectory the nation is taking, particularly in light of growing global awareness of climate change as a critical hazard. The idea of intentionally stepping away from science-based regulations feels like a step backward, potentially impacting not only the current generation but future ones as well. It’s hard to see how deliberately weakening environmental protections aligns with safeguarding the well-being of children, a goal many would assume to be paramount.
The implications of such a decision extend far beyond domestic policy. The global community is increasingly recognizing the urgency of climate action, and countries that appear to be willfully ignorant of these threats risk facing significant international repercussions. The notion of maintaining a high quality of life under widespread international sanctions is a daunting prospect, and it’s a scenario that has yet to be tested on a grand scale. This move could very well invite such a situation.
Arguments in favor of this deregulatory action often point to the immense financial savings it would purportedly bring, citing trillions of dollars in reduced regulatory burdens. However, this perspective seems to overlook the potential long-term economic costs associated with unchecked climate change. The idea that economic prosperity can be achieved by ignoring environmental realities feels like a dangerous gamble. It’s akin to prioritizing immediate financial gain over the fundamental resources necessary for survival, like clean air and water.
The impact on industries that have invested in cleaner technologies is also a significant point of discussion. Companies that have embraced sustainable practices and developed innovative solutions, such as those in the electric vehicle sector, have actively encouraged the EPA to maintain the endangerment finding. They view it as a stable regulatory platform that supports their investments and fosters consumer choice. Reversing this finding could disrupt their growth, limit consumer options, and negatively affect various sectors of the economy.
This situation evokes a sense of déjà vu, a feeling of witnessing a crisis unfold while some choose to ignore it. The analogy of a predator that is actively harming people, yet its presence is denied by those in power, comes to mind. Pretending that the harm isn’t occurring doesn’t make it disappear; it only allows the problem to fester and worsen. The current approach seems to be characterized by a denial of reality, a kind of childlike belief that if something isn’t acknowledged, it ceases to exist.
The notion that this decision is about saving Americans from “crushing regulations” feels disingenuous when juxtaposed with the potential for immense environmental and societal damage. The EPA’s very name implies a mission of protection, and this proposed action seems to contradict that core purpose. It raises questions about whether the agency is truly serving the interests of the public or succumbing to other influences.
Furthermore, the sentiment expressed by a significant majority of the public who commented on the proposed rule change was one of opposition. When a government appears to disregard the overwhelming will of its people in favor of a small, economically motivated minority, it calls into question the very idea of representation. This disconnect between public opinion and policy decisions is a troubling development.
The potential consequences of this shift are far-reaching and could lead to a significant degradation of the environment for generations to come. We could see a return to conditions where natural resources are heavily exploited and pollution becomes rampant, leading to the river fires and general environmental decline that were once stark warnings. The idea that the planet was destroyed for short-term shareholder value is a chilling thought, highlighting a profound ethical failing.
Ultimately, the scientific evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is well-established. The basic principles of atmospheric science have been understood for centuries: more greenhouse gases mean more trapped heat. To actively move away from acknowledging this fundamental scientific reality is not just regressive; it is actively harmful. It suggests a willingness to gamble with the planet’s future and the well-being of all its inhabitants for reasons that appear to be driven by ideology and financial interests rather than sound science and genuine concern for the public good. The very idea of “environmental protection” becomes a misnomer under such circumstances.