itstargetnews
Listen to this article
Estimated 4 minutes
The audio version of this article was generated using artificial intelligence-based technology. Mistakes in pronunciation may occur. We work with our partners to constantly review and improve results.
The Trump administration is expected this week to withdraw a legal opinion that has guided US emissions controls since the Obama era, rolling back the so-called finding of endangerment Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This finding has been the legal and scientific basis for US climate action since 2009, when the EPA responded to a Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases were harming Americans.
Since then, he has led how the EPA and other US agencies regulate greenhouse gases in everything from industrial plants to vehicles. Without it, all these rules could be abolished completely.
Why is the US doing this now?
The Trump administration has shifted the U.S. government toward supporting the fossil fuel industry, in part to boost oil and gas exports and lower energy prices for consumers.
President Donald Trump ordered the EPA to review the legality of the endangerment findings last year, with the goal of removing what he called “ideologically motivated” regulations on energy, particularly fossil fuels.
Critics say it’s part of a long-running campaign by Trump-allied officials and lawyers to roll back climate regulations. The hazard finding prevented the administration from completely removing all emissions regulations.
“Even under the first Trump administration, the EPA was reluctant to accept a finding of endangerment. So they weakened the Obama administration’s regulations on power plants and motor vehicle emissions, but they didn’t completely repeal them,” said Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia who specializes in climate policy.
Overturning the findings would be “a major setback for American climate policy — arguing that greenhouse gas emissions do not threaten public health and present and future generations,” he said. Keith Brooks, programs ddirector of the Canadian climate advocacy group Environmental Defence.
What rules might this affect?
Brooks says the immediate effects would be on US power plants, which in 2009 were mostly coal-fired.
Partly because of the threat findings, the EPA was able to reduce the role of coal, replacing it with cleaner gas plants and renewable energy sources.
Methane regulations could also be lifted, Brooks says. The powerful greenhouse gas is responsible for one-third of global warming, and reducing these emissions is considered key to maintaining a stable climate.
Vehicle emissions standards could also be relaxed, putting the US further back in the global electric vehicle race by reducing pressure on automakers to produce zero-emission vehicles.
Will the move be contested?
The finding of endangerment followed a Judgment of the Supreme Court of the USA 2007 that greenhouse gases are harming Americans, which prompted the government to act.
Harrison says many groups or even states are likely to challenge the reversal in court.
The Supreme Court’s opinion on his original decision is unclear, but it is now more heavily stacked with conservative justices than it was in 2007.
Chief Political Correspondent Rosemary Barton asks The National’s At Issue panel to shed light on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s new national automotive strategy and the decision to scrap Canada’s electric vehicle mandate.
What does this mean for Canada?
Brooks says that could lead to a split between the US and Canada over vehicle standards, something both countries have historically disagreed on.
This is what Prime Minister Mark Carney said last week announced a new vehicle emissions standards that Brooks sees as a sign that Canada is already moving away from the US on clean energy policy.
“We have to be able to go our own way,” he said.
“Importantly, failure in the United States, while setting back efforts to combat climate change, (should not) set back policy and real efforts to reduce emissions here in Canada.”
Harrison says removing the endangerment finding will continue to reinforce the Trump administration’s denial of climate change, something Canadians will have to be wary of.
“We need to be vigilant and stand firm in the fight against climate change and see the global energy transition happen,” Brooks said.
“These clean energy technologies, solar energy, batteries, electric vehicles, they’re just better. And if we pretend it’s not happening, if we endure this transition, we’re going to be left behind.”
