‘Science’ demands that the ‘endangerment finding’ be overturned
Science is on the side of the Trump administration’s efforts to unwind the U.S. from costly climate regulations—much to the consternation of major media platforms that peddle unfounded, politically motivated assertions.
That’s why fresh research and updated findings into the impact of carbon dioxide emissions should figure more prominently into an otherwise laudatory and audacious White House strategy to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding. In my new book, Climate Porn: How and Why Anti-Population Zealots Fabricate Science, while Targeting American Capitalism, Freedom, and Independence, I review the science and common sense that reiterates CO2 is a naturally occurring, highly beneficial compound. Indeed, it is critical to life on Earth. And yet, the Obama administration saw fit to declare CO2 a “pollutant” in its endangerment finding, which found that CO2 poses a threat to public health and welfare. This enabled the EPA to unleash a wave of costly climate regulations.
A little history is in order to understand how the EPA was permitted to overstep constitutional boundaries and exercise power never delegated to it by Congress.
The problem began in 2007 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v EPA that greenhouse gases (GHG) could qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In its 5-4 decision, the high court gave climate activists the greenlight they needed—via the EPA—to exert widespread control over the economy without congressional input. President Barack Obama’s EPA used the endangerment finding to set limits on CO2 emissions from power plants, automobiles and trucks. In a press statement announcing the final rule to reverse the Obama-era endangerment finding, Trump’s EPA described its move as “the single largest deregulatory action in history.” The agency estimates that by junking the endangerment finding it will save the American taxpayers about $1.3 trillion.
“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” EPA Chief Lee Zeldin said in the release. “Referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’ the Endangerment Finding is now eliminated. The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream. As EPA Administrator, I am proud to deliver the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history on behalf of American taxpayers and consumers. As an added bonus, the off-cycle credit for the almost universally despised start-stop feature on vehicles has been removed.”
From a legal standpoint, Zeldin did not leave much out of the equation in his deregulatory moves. The other critical piece here involves the legal gymnastics the Obama administration performed as it deliberately misconstrued the congressional intent of Section 202 of the CAA. Congress authorized the EPA to tackle localized instances of air pollution found harmful to public health and welfare. But Section 202 does not give the agency authority to enact far reaching economic policy changes for the ostensible purpose of combating global warming. Trump’s EPA has clearly committed to following the law in line with what elected officials in Congress had in mind when they crafted CAA’s key components.
The decision to defang unaccountable administrative agents while re-empowering elected representatives makes a nicely timed birthday gift to America as she celebrates 250 years of independence. So far, applause is in order.
But the White House strategy may fall short. One of the most disconcerting headlines came from Politico declaring: “Trump sidelines climate contrarians in science rollback.” In anticipation of taking on the endangerment finding, Trump’s Energy Department (DOE) put out a 141 page report last summer from five well credentialed climate scientists. The team proceeded to upend theories of human induced climate catastrophe—and predictably made itself a target in the process. The climate establishment does not want to be told that any CO2 related warming is much less economically damaging than what is widely believed, and that interventionist government policies are a counterproductive waste.
But that’s what the scientists concluded. So, is it really the case they have been sidelined? Politico reports on how climate activists inside and outside of government bent themselves into all sorts of contortions to try to discredit the DOE report. They attempted to villainize DOE Secretary Chris Wright for providing scientists with a platform to analyze data relevant to recent global warming trends. In his forward to the report, Wright acknowledges readers may be surprised by the report’s findings since they diverge from what the secretary calls the “mainstream narrative.” As Wright observes, this is “a sign of how far the public conversation has drifted from the science itself.” Readers will discover, for instance, that solar activity may have had a significant impact on the warming of the late 20th century. The idea that natural influences are largely responsible for warming trends has Wright’s antagonists in the media setting their hair on fire. But those same antagonists are detaching themselves from the facts in their assault.
In its “reporting,” Politico makes the critical mistake of claiming the Wright sought “to reach out to scientists who represent the relatively small number of researchers” who reject climate alarmism. In fact, it is not “a small number.” It’s a large and growing number. The CO2 Coalition, a group devoted to highlighting the benefits of CO2, draws in dozens of scientists and researchers from across the globe. So does The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, set to hold its 16thInternational Conference on Climate Change this coming April in Washington D.C. As it turns out, the DOE team of scientists is hardly any kind of outlier in calling attention to the natural influences behind climate change. As I discuss in Climate Porn, The Center for Environmental Research and Sciences(CERES) made waves in December 2024 with a report that challenges key assumptions of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report makes the case that the U.N. failed to properly account for the impact of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)—the scientific term used to describe the amount of sunlight or energy that reaches the Earth. The CERES report also discusses the impact the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect has on weather stations around the globe.
“Several of the TSI estimates the IPCC had neglected in their analysis suggest that most of the warming since the 19th century could be natural—especially from the non-urbanized data,” CERES said in a blog post. “Others suggest that the warming has been a mixture of natural and human-caused factors.”
Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, encourages the Trump administration to continue what started with the DOE report. He explained why in an email message.
“By incorporating the growing number of questions being raised challenging the decades-old narrative on global warming/climate change, the Trump administration is restoring scientific balance to a process long dominated by a monolithic explanation of the Earth’s highly complex climate system. The Energy Department’s report did not cherry-pick data to confirm a preexisting bias; it highlighted key findings that had been purposely excluded from the discussion.
As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, policies imposed without sufficient scientific foundation and driven by the urge to exercise power whatever the cost, will take us down the road to ruin. It is revealing that many of those critical of the rising tide of climate skepticism are the same ones who have assured us that our energy future lies in wind turbines, solar panels, and EVs. They see their world collapsing of its own dead weight and don’t like it.”
From a policy perspective, we must understand the opportunity costs of misdirected resources that could be used to address genuine challenges to humanity. Naturally occurring climate change could present some of its own challenges, especially if the Earth moves back into a cooling phase, which it will at some point. There are also perpetual concerns over the threat from near Earth asteroids. But humanity is going to be in stronger position to address these threats with richer, wealthier, more industrialized societies. America’s reenergized space program is a hopeful sign. So is American ingenuity in general. The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has published data that shows from 1970 to 2023, U.S. emissions of six criteria air pollutants declined 78% while GDP grew 321% & energy consumption rose 42%. The American way is the right way, and it looks like the entire premise of global warming scare was faulty right from the beginning.
Trump, Zeldin, Wright, and crew should not just rely on legal arguments, but rather double down on the science as they take on the endangerment finding. Posterity will thank them.
Kevin Mooney is a Senior Investigative Researcher for Restoration News specializing in energy policy, environmentalist groups, and dark money. He writes regularly for the American Spectator, Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, Daily Signal, and National Review. Kevin is the author of the new book, Climate Porn: How and Why Anti-Population Zealots Fabricate Science, while Targeting American Capitalism, Freedom, and Independence.