Title: The Environmental Protection Agency Flips on Greenhouse Gases

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. As we continue with the Health and Climate Tuesday section of the show, we were obviously just talking about public health in the context of the new cane sugar switch for some Coke products at the request of the Trump administration. Now, we'll talk about a major development in US climate policy. The Environmental Protection Agency is drafting a proposal to rescind its landmark 2009 "endangerment finding," as it's called, which concluded that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.

That finding has been the legal foundation for regulating emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other major sources of pollution under the Clean Air Act. This report comes from The Washington Post, among others, who cite sources in advance of a formal announcement, which we're told could come today. If the proposal goes forward, it could dismantle many of the country's existing climate rules and call into question whether the federal government will continue regulating greenhouse gas emissions at all.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the Trump administration argue the original finding is outdated, too costly, and was never explicitly required by Congress as part of the Clean Air Act, but climate scientists and environmental advocates call this a dangerous rollback that ignores overwhelming evidence about the risks of climate change. Washington Post Climate and Environment Enterprise reporter Jake Spring is on this story, and he joins us to explain what's at stake and how this fits into the administration's broader deregulation push. Jake, thanks for coming on today. Welcome back to WNYC.

Jake Spring: Hi, Brian, thanks for having me on. It's a pleasure.

Brian Lehrer: First, can you explain the 2009 "endangerment finding" under the Clean Air Act? What was that?

Jake Spring: The "endangerment finding" basically found that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare and therefore can be regulated as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This finding was in response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said the EPA can regulate things as pollutants if they find they endanger public health and welfare. The EPA went out and wrote this policy, and this formed the basis of their climate policies going forward since 2009.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, and going back to that 2007 Supreme Court ruling, that was really interesting at the time because the industry was arguing that the Clean Air Act doesn't cover greenhouse gas emissions because they're not pollution in the traditional sense, right? If you have a smokestack that's spewing toxics into the air at ground level and it's causing people to have asthma or other problems, that's what the Clean Air Act was meant for. Things that go up into the atmosphere and have some global impact on the atmosphere, that's not what the Clean Air Act was for. That was the issue, right?

Jake Spring: Environmentalists will argue that the Clean Air Act is meant for that, but people on the other side are certainly arguing that that was not on Congress's mind when they passed the Clean Air Act. They were thinking of things like mercury and sulfur dioxide that, if you breathe in, directly harm you. With climate change, it's a little more indirect, but people are saying the evidence is mounting. Carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere, warms the atmosphere, causes more extreme weather events, and these are causing people to lose their lives. Even if it's indirect, the argument is, it still is affecting human health and welfare in the carbon interaction [unintelligible 00:04:01]

Brian Lehrer: Back then, the EPA found that it was under its purview to start dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. Now, according to your sources, the EPA under President Trump will stop doing that. What have you been told?

Jake Spring: Yes. Sources who have seen a draft have said that the Trump EPA will basically attack the "endangerment finding" on the grounds that the policy implications weren't adequately thought out, the big costs to the economy, the feasibility, and they'll attack the legal basis, this idea that Congress never mandated it and the Clean Air Act doesn't say it. The draft they had seen largely did not address scientific concerns, which environmentalists say are irrefutable.

The policy itself, when it comes out, which we're hearing could be as soon as today, we'll see how they address the science that they try to say that climate change either is not as bad as we thought or otherwise deny the issue, but that's what sources have said. We'll see what comes out when they do the final proposal.

Brian Lehrer: Is it that they want to remove greenhouse gas regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency and put it in a different agency, or is it that they want to stop regulating greenhouse gases in any way at all?

Jake Spring: At least for EPA, they want to stop regulating greenhouse gases at all. We've seen policies out of the Department of Energy also promoting things like coal power. If you read, just reading into that, I think you can see that there's not concern over emissions. The administration has really spoken a lot about how they're concerned about generating more energy. At least for the Department of Energy stuff, it's about that, and they're less concerned about climate. The Energy Secretary said that directly. He recognizes climate change is real, but energy poverty, that's a bigger concern than climate change.

Brian Lehrer: Yet they're trying to attack the wind power industry. They're trying to remove or diminish at least one growing source of energy in this country to the benefit of fossil fuel industry as a percentage of the market, aren't they?

Jake Spring: Correct. All offshore wind projects that are not already under construction, approvals have been halted. They put additional layers of scrutiny on that. That mostly applies to projects on federal land or in federal waters. Projects on private land can largely still go ahead. That said, in Donald Trump's signature "One Beautiful Bill," they've also rolled back the tax credits for wind and solar, which is also making it a little bit less economical to do these projects. You have seen a broader effort to limit renewables and boost oil and gas.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, any questions or comments for Washington Post Climate and Environment Enterprise reporter Jake Spring, who's covering the draft proposal that sources have shared with him that's not been officially announced yet, but again, we're told that this could come today to remove greenhouse gas emissions from the purview of the EPA at all in terms of regulating them? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text. What are the main ways that the EPA regulates greenhouse gas emissions today? Do they prohibit certain kinds? Are there limits on individual emission facilities, power plants, other things? What are the main rules that are in place that they might undo?

Jake Spring: The main thing we might see undone today is on motor vehicle emissions. This is tailpipe emissions for greenhouse gases specifically. From what my sources have told me, toxic emissions, things like sulfur dioxide, would still be regulated. This only applies to climate emissions or greenhouse gas emissions. Those could completely go away because they've, since 2012, all been based on the "endangerment finding," which puts us into uncharted territory in terms of "What do automakers do if there's no regulation on the greenhouse gases coming out of their tailpipes?"

The "endangerment finding" does also underpin regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas projects and also from power plant rules to limit their emissions, which we have seen the Trump administration already rolling back through other means, but getting rid of the "endangerment finding" will help to cement that, potentially across the board.

Brian Lehrer: All of that might go away. What percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come, in the United States, from cars?

Jake Spring: For cars, transportation is the largest. I don't have the exact percentage, followed by power plants.

Brian Lehrer: Everybody who owns a car, at least in New York, I imagine, around the country, you tell me, has to get an emissions check as part of their inspections, right?

Jake Spring: As far as I know, yes.

Brian Lehrer: So that would all go away?

Jake Spring: I'm not familiar with New York law. In theory, I'm not sure if states set their own rules in terms of checking this, but I'm really not 100% clear on all the implications.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Because there's a device on cars that help cut down the emissions. My understanding is that there was a raft of thefts of those things from parked cars in New York City in recent years. There's at least one piece of automotive equipment that it sounds like the Trump administration wants to make obsolete.

Jake Spring: Yes. You're talking about catalytic converters.

Brian Lehrer: Correct.

Jake Spring: Those thefts were taking place across the country. Those have been in place for so long, it's really hard to say that they'd be done away with. When the motor vehicle rules came out, industry was largely on board with this. They said they wanted the certainty, and they knew they had to address climate change. It was good that the government told them, "You need to do it in this way." I do think, in the absence of regulation, it's hard to say whether GM or Ford or other automakers are going to say, "We're going to go back to making more and more polluting cars." They already have the technology not to. I guess that would open that possibility.

Brian Lehrer: Do the catalytic converters reduce ground-level pollutant emissions, not just greenhouse gas emissions?

Jake Spring: I'm not an expert on automotive engineering, but I do know that they cut carbon dioxide and emissions coming out of the back of your car. That's right at the ground level.

Brian Lehrer: Okay, fair enough. I'm taking you out of your beat. Jake Spring's beat is Climate and Environment Enterprise reporter Jake Spring from The Washington Post, as he's explaining what's at stake and how this draft report that sources have shared with him would stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions at all. 212-433-WNYC. We'll get to a few phone calls here. 212-433-9692. Mook in State College, Pennsylvania. You're on WNYC. Hello?

Mook: Hi, Brian. Hi, Jake. I just had a question about this policy. I'm thinking about how oftentimes carbon dioxide co-occurs with other pollutants. Think of a tailpipe emission where there's probably other emissions that are happening, or a coal-fired power plant, where it's carbon dioxide plus mercury and other types of pollutants. Is there a way of trying to maybe use other rules or regulations to reduce emissions of those other pollutants, which might not be carbon dioxide, but we can maybe get around this issue by trying to target other co-occurring pollutants? Thank you so much.

Jake Spring: Yes, that's certainly true.

Brian Lehrer: Jake, go ahead.

Jake Spring: Yes, that's certainly true. With both tailpipe and power plants, we're going to see, these other toxic air pollutants will still be regulated, and these co-pollutants, if you control them, it will have a certain effect on carbon dioxide, too.

Brian Lehrer: John in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi John.

John: Oh. Hello, Brian. Hello. Thank you, guest. I just tuned into your conversation about pollutants. I just finished a book called Struggling for Air, which is about the coal industry and Wyoming and West Virginia, the two largest states that produce coal. Wyoming's is better than West Virginia's for some reason, but anyway, I'm just wondering. Let's say it's on the "Big, Beautiful Bill."

Can't the next president, who, I guess, as opposed to catastrophizing, which is what I normally do, I'm thinking optimistically that'll be a Democrat who cares about the environment and children and grandchildren and so forth of the planet, can he just undo, even though it's in the "Big, Beautiful Bill," all the retroactive polluters Nixon-era things that Trump has put back and disappeared and stopped giving tax credits for solar panels, wind energy, thermo, nuclear, whatever? Well, is that a possibility? We just have to pollute the air a bit more for two or three more years, and hopefully we'll be okay, and then it'll just go back, hopefully?

Brian Lehrer: John, thank you very much. Yes, it's a good political question, right? There are some things that go back and forth and back and forth, depending on which party has the White House. Do you expect this would be that, if this goes through?

Jake Spring: We're talking about two different things. The "One Big, Beautiful Bill" is doing away with these renewable energy tax credits. That is not something that a Democrat gets elected in three years could undo easily. You'd need support from Congress. Meanwhile, the "endangerment finding" since 2009, it has ping-ponged back and forth, with it being instated under Obama, then Trump 1 trying to undo it, and Biden reaffirming it, then Trump 2 now trying to get rid of it again.

It's really going to be an issue that's probably going to be decided by the courts, but the question is, can it make it to the Supreme Court before a Democrat is elected and just drops the case? We're going to see this play out in courts and probably going back and forth between Republican and Democratic administrations for some time to come.

Brian Lehrer: I see that legal experts you spoke with suggest this is unlikely to hold up in court, dismantling the EPA's regulation of climate pollutants.

Jake Spring: Yes. Well, I think it's more a live issue the more people I talk to. One thing really is just the composition of the court has changed so much since 2007. Then you've seen them overturn themselves, with this court, decisions made in the past, Roe v. Wade, for example. It does seem like it is in play. There was a 2022 Supreme Court decision that said that if an agency is going to take on major new authority to regulate, for example, regulating greenhouse gases, then Congress must explicitly give them that authority. Conservative legal experts say that you could use this argument to get this original 2007 Supreme Court case overturned under this new, more conservative court.

Brian Lehrer: You were mentioning cars being the number one category of greenhouse gas emitters in the United States. A listener reminds us in a text that in New York, buildings are the number one emitter of greenhouse gases. That's true. We've reported on that many times on this show. There are local efforts here, like what they call Local Law 97, which requires all new buildings to be less emitting in various ways, and eventually, retrofitting older buildings. I guess that the city could still do that, or do you think if they undid the greenhouse gas regulation regime entirely from the EPA, that that would affect even that?

Jake Spring: Yes, we're talking mostly about federal regulation. Lots of people say the states and localities should step in and fill the gap. We're seeing more efforts to do that. We saw that under Trump 1, but I've also reported on Columbia University, and some New York activists have set up this shop, writing draft legislation for states and to pass legislation to take action on climate that they hope can be passed around the country in lieu of action by the federal government. It's certainly possible that, yes, New York City or other places can fill the gap with their own laws and regulations.

Brian Lehrer: Let me take one caller on catalytic converters, since I was unclear, and you acknowledge this is not on your beat to describe if and how much they help cars not emit greenhouse gases, in particular. Ernest, in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hello, Ernest.

Ernest: All right. Thanks, both, for this important program. Catalytic converters do not clean up carbon dioxide, which is the greenhouse gas emitted from the tailpipe of internal combustion engines. Catalytic converters instead help complete the combustion and reduce nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons, and create a little bit more carbon dioxide, which is the natural product, along with water, of complete combustion.

Automotive engineering pollution control has been focused on optimizing the complete combustion, which you can never do. There's always some pollution, as we all know. Catalytic converters are not the issue. Yes, and I know personally, catalytic converters have been the target of theft. Mine was stolen twice in recent years because the rare earth metals in them have gone up vastly in price.

That also is a separate issue. I can add regarding one other technical issue you touched upon, the state-required testing of vehicles. Yes, many states, or most of them, require testing of the vehicles to see if the pollution control equipment is working properly or not properly, but well enough to prevent the vehicle from being deemed what, in the 1980s, was called prevent it from being a "gross polluter." It's not perfect; it's just good enough.

Brian Lehrer: Ernest, thank you.

Ernest: Yes, that only tests the other types of [unintelligible 00:20:23], not the--

Brian Lehrer: Right, right, the ground-level pollutants. Ernest, thank you for that informative call. I stand corrected on whether catalytic converters have any relationship to greenhouse gas emissions from cars. To wrap this up, Jake, go ahead, Jake.

Jake Spring: Ernest is absolutely right. He's absolutely right that, yes, it is for other pollutants. I misspoke earlier. It's been a while since I've been an automotive reporter.

Brian Lehrer: What happens once this proposal is published, which you're reporting could be today?

Jake Spring: Once it's published, they'll give 60 or 90 days for public comment, and then they'll be able to finalize this in the form of a rule, which we'll have to see exactly what they say in terms of presumably it would get rid of the "endangerment finding" and to what degree they say it would get rid of motor vehicle rules. The expectation is, it will completely do away with them, but that remains to be seen in the final policy. Once that happens and the rule's finalized, it's probably going to be the starting gun for this legal battle that could go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Brian Lehrer: Washington Post Climate and Environment Enterprise reporter, Jake Spring, thanks so much for joining us today.

Jake Spring: Thanks, Brian.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.