EPA Reverses Long-Standing Climate Change Finding, Stripping Its Own Ability To Regulate Emissions
18 149President Donald Trump announced Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency is rescinding the legal finding that it has relied on for nearly two decades to limit the heat-trapping pollution that spews from vehicle tailpipes, oil refineries and factories. From a report: The repeal of that landmark determination, known as the endangerment finding, will upend most U.S. policies aimed at curbing climate change. The finding -- which the EPA issued in 2009 -- said the global warming caused by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endangers the health and welfare of current and future generations.
"We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy," Trump said at a news conference. "This determination had no basis in fact -- none whatsoever. And it had no basis in law. On the contrary, over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world."
Major environmental groups have disputed the administration's stance on the endangerment finding and have been preparing to sue in response to its repeal.
18 comments
Intelligence has limits... (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @12:40PM (#65986948)
...but stupidity has infinite potential.
Re: Intelligence has limits... (Score: 5, Insightful)
by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @03:31PM (#65987308)
Sometimes states are the right answer, when there is no common interstate interest. Of course rivers and air doesn't abruptly end at state lines.
Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Insightful)
by PackMan97 ( 244419 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @12:42PM (#65986956)
This is what happens when we have kings in the White House issuing decrees. A new king comes in and wipes out the decrees from the old king.
As disastrous as this sounds, the short term impact will be minimal. Companies are not going to invest in new capability without having a stable regulatory environment. If Dems lose big in Nov '26, they might then...but if Dems win big, expect companies to do nothing knowing that in 2028 the Endangerment Finding will be back and even more dire.
At the end of the day, Congress should be legislating these types of regulations and not leaving it up the current person occupying the White House. They need to get it together and do their job...or maybe "We the People" need to start doing our job instead of electing politicians that care more about their own power than they do about the future of America.
I'm a founding member of MASA - Make America Sane Again
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Insightful)
by shilly ( 142940 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @12:47PM (#65986972)
I think there will be a number of opportunities for companies to profit from the removal of the rules for as long as the rules are gone. For example, manufacturers may turn to cheaper, high GHG feedstocks over the next couple of years.
In the end, this is being done by a bunch of old scared men shouting at the future, and they will die and leave the rest of us alone. But they can certainly make things shittier until they’re gone
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Insightful)
by sinij ( 911942 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @12:50PM (#65986976)
At the end of the day, Congress should be legislating these types of regulations
Absolutely. However, hyper-partisanship makes it impossible. Can you see GOP and Democrats finding common ground on this issue in 2026? Democrats are all-in on Net Zero and GOP wants to ban renewables. How can you reconcile these positions?
There is no requirement for a 50-50 split. (Score: 5, Insightful)
by JimBowen ( 885772 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @02:40PM (#65987214)
And yet almost every vote on anything everywhere these days seems to result in exactly that: A near-perfect 50-50 split.
That's weird, isn't it Mr Zuckerberg
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Insightful)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @01:02PM (#65987006)
Apparently republicans no longer believe pollution is detrimental to their health.
How the fuck am I supposed to compromise on that?
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Funny)
by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @01:11PM (#65987030)
Get them to suck some exhaust pipes if pollution is so harmless. Make it a bet or tell them it's the only way to really be macho and not gay or something. The problem should solve itself.
Stop giving them money (Score: 5, Insightful)
by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @02:37PM (#65987206)
Red states are welfare queens [moneygeek.com].
Start by making them pull their own weight.
The next step is encouraging bottom-up independence. Pro-feudal Republicans want dependency. This is one of the reasons they fight universal health care - keeping insurance tied to employment suppresses business formation by keeping a lot of people tied to their job because of risk.
Eventually opinions and expectations shift.
In the mean time, keep pointing how how Republicans are ruining their grandkids' lives, leaving them poorer, less educated, and sicker.
Re:Stop giving them money (Score: 5, Insightful)
by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @05:02PM (#65987532)
#1 cost for automotive industry in the USA: Healthcare. Then we bitch about unfair Chinese subsidies because they have free healthcare... they also treat electricity like a government service... like public roads, water... Luckily, we got highways and water long before the corporatism took over or we'd be paying tolls on every road to some mega corporation (likely foreign owned) and buying jugs of water everywhere it's not profitable enough to run water pipes.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Interesting)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @01:47PM (#65987110)
Apparently Democrats no long belive in having agriculture, industry, or transportation and want us all to subsistence starve to death to save the planet.
How the fuck am I supposed to compromise on that?
I must have missed all that legislation. Can you link to any?
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @02:35PM (#65987198)
Compromise on what? That pollution is bad? It's a fundamental question: Is continuing to add carbon to the system a good thing, bad thing, or neutral? This administration, against the feedback from the vast majority of the scientific community, has quite literally just said "nah, it's fine". There's no compromise to be made, you either agree on the fundamentals or not. The part to compromise on is the "what should we do about it?" question, but you can't even begin to answer that question until you agree on the underlying premise that we need to curtail our carbon emissions.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @08:10PM (#65987896)
This notion there has to be agreement on facts or facts even matter is misguided....Everyone would be better served advocating for policies most people are willing to accept.
How can you get people to agree to accept something when a significant portion of them do not agree on what the fundamental problem is? Or that a problem even exists? I absolutely agree with your sentiment, we would be better served advocating policies the majority of people are willing to accept. But sometimes the adults in the room need to stand up and do the right thing instead of the popular thing. So no, I'm not willing to compromise on the fundamental "excess carbon in our atmosphere is a hazard to our future existence.". Again, the "what should we do about it" is certainly open for debate, but you cannot have a constructive debate with someone who disagrees with what the problem is.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Informative)
by Holi ( 250190 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @02:32PM (#65987188)
Not sure that's true anymore. It seems like most of the non Maga GOP member are retiring or otherwise leaving office.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Informative)
by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @02:49PM (#65987236)
That distinction was apparent for about 30 seconds immediately following November 3rd 2020. It vanished completely (again) the moment the run for Trump2.0 was announced. Those MAGA coattails are mighty large. You may get occasional bluster from the GOP, but when the rubber meets the road they are nearly in 100% lockstep in whatever direction MAGA is taking them.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score: 5, Insightful)
by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @02:27PM (#65987182)
That's not a good excuse to actively choose worse though.
Convince your Boomer parents and Gen x buddies (Score: 5, Insightful)
by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @01:41PM (#65987102)
To stop voting republican. They are objectively bad for the economy and the environment and everyone knows it but people keep electing them.
The problem is you have to get people away from right-wing media and 90% of all media is now owned by billionaires.
On top of that it's not socially acceptable to point out that Republicans are bad. We have been conditioned for decades that partisan politics is a no no topic. We are all just supposed to pretend that both sides bad and all politicians lie.
I fucking wish the Democrats would go back to lying to me. Even Obama never lied I think the last Democrat who told me an honest to God lie is Bill Clinton.
Lies win elections. The Democrats stop fighting dirty when LBJ was out the door and they've been getting their asses kicked ever since.
Needs a new name (Score: 5, Insightful)
by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Friday February 13, 2026 @01:14PM (#65987038)
It should now be called EDA, for Environmental Destruction Agency. Of course, that would necessitate new stationary, and the shredding or burning of the old stuff - an action which is perfectly aligned with their new mission.