The administration of Donald Trump has pushed for the repeal of the Endangerment Finding, the scientific and legal basis that since 2009 allowed the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This decision eliminates the federal legal framework that limited air pollution linked to transportation, industry, and power plants.
The finding originated in the historic Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA, which forced the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases posed a risk to public health. In 2009, the EPA concluded that they did, establishing a key precedent for the U.S. climate policy.
Reactions and Criticisms
The measure has generated a strong reaction from environmental organizations and states that have already announced lawsuits:
- Earthjustice called the decision “a low blow” for millions of Americans affected by heatwaves, wildfires, and floods.
- Greenpeace USA accused the EPA of “betraying its mission to protect human health and the environment” and favoring the fossil fuel industry.
Critics warn that the elimination of the finding could result in:
- Higher levels of pollution.
- Increase in respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
- Economic costs from extreme weather events.
Political and Legal Implications
The repeal anticipates a new legal battle. Environmental law experts foresee that the conflict could escalate again to the Supreme Court, reopening the debate on federal authority to regulate emissions in a context of growing political polarization.
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers and climate organizations are pressing the Congress to pass legislation that strengthens climate action at the federal level. Some states and cities have indicated they will maintain their own regulations to fill the void left by the federal agency.
Science and Public Health
Experts remind that climate science does not change by decree: greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere through a physical process known since the 19th century. Political discussion can redefine norms and budgets, but it does not alter the laws of thermodynamics.
Moreover, the health impacts are already visible:
- The study Trends in heat-related deaths in the US, 1999-2023 (JAMA) shows that heat-related deaths doubled in 25 years, from 1,069 in 1999 to 2,325 in 2023.
- Research in Nature Climate Change (2021) determined that more than a third of heat-related deaths are due to human-induced climate change, accounting for about 9,700 annual deaths worldwide.
- A recent study concluded that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas between 2010 and 2023 were related to extreme heat.
In parallel, the PubMed database records more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies on climate and health, of which more than 5,000 focus on the United States. More than 60% were published in the last five years, reflecting the scientific urgency of the issue.
Cold vs. Heat: A Temporary Balance
Studies also show that, although deaths from cold are decreasing, they still outnumber heat-related deaths by 13 times in the U.S. However, experts warn that once the planet warms by an additional 1.5 ºC, the reduction in cold-related deaths will no longer offset the increase in heat-related deaths, leading to a rapid increase in total mortality.
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding marks a turning point in U.S. environmental policy. The outcome will depend on the courts, Congress, and public pressure, at a time when the impacts of climate change are increasingly visible, costly, and deadly.
