Editor’s Note: It’s not often we receive three op-ed submissions on the same topic — the same day the event in question took place. Here are some reactions to the Trump administration’s repeal of EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding” concerning greenhouse gases, all sent yesterday, February 12.
Attorney General Phil Weiser statement on U.S. EPA revoking a key policy to combat climate change
Attorney General Phil Weiser today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding, which determined that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that drives climate change and endangers public health and welfare:
“In the action announced today, EPA has finalized its misguided proposal to rescind the endangerment finding. As I explained in my testimony to EPA on the proposal, there is no legal or scientific justification to roll back decades of progress in fighting climate change by undoing a finding rooted in well-established research and common sense: greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare. We live that reality every day in Colorado, with record drought, catastrophic wildfires, and ever-increasing heatwaves that threaten our residents, economy, and infrastructure. The Supreme Court held nearly 20 years ago that the federal Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. I will challenge this illegal action in court.”
The 2009 endangerment finding was the direct result of the landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which confirmed EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that threaten public health and welfare. In response to that opinion and after years of scientific review, EPA confirmed in 2009 that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that harms public health and welfare in numerous ways. The agency then set standards to limit motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.
Conservation Colorado issues statement on the Environmental Protection Agency rescinding the endangerment finding
In response to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding through a final rule, Conservation Colorado’s Vice President of Programs Katie Belgard issued the following statement:
“By rescinding the endangerment finding, the Trump administration is making climate denial the official policy of the United States and prioritizing the profits of corporate polluters over the health and well-being of working families. This decision will mean dirtier air and water, higher costs for families and greater health risks for Latino, Black, Brown and working communities.”
Rescinding the endangerment finding eliminates the EPA’s ability to protect people from the pollution that causes climate change. In Colorado, increased climate pollution will fuel hotter, drier weather, raise the cost of living and increase the frequency of billion-dollar disasters — costs that are ultimately borne by taxpayers and ratepayers, not corporate polluters. Communities will face more toxic wildfire smoke and worsening air quality that increases the risk of heart attacks, cancer, asthma and other serious health conditions.
Megan Waters, Strategic Communications Coordinator, Conservation Colorado
Dear Editor
The Trump administration has repealed the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse‑gas “endangerment finding.” In 2009, the EPA formally concluded that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health, giving the agency its legal authority to limit pollution from cars, power plants, and oil and gas facilities.
The new rule strips away that foundation, and it is hailed by President Trump as “the single largest deregulatory action in American history.” It is, in reality, the deliberate blinding of our primary public‑health and environmental watchdog at the very moment the alarms are sounding loudest.
Climate scientists now warn that global warming is accelerating, possibly pushing Earth toward a “hothouse” trajectory. They describe a world in which ice sheets melt, forests die back, and oceans lose their capacity to buffer heat, triggering feedbacks that could lock in catastrophic levels of warming for centuries. There is no historical guide for what comes next because humanity has never before forced the climate system so far, so fast.
Scientist and author Jeffrey A. Lockwood, in his essay “The Fine Art of the Good Guest,” reminds us that we are “uninvited, but not unwelcome, guests of the planet.” A good guest, he says, asks little, accepts what is offered, and gives thanks. This decision does the opposite: it demands much, takes more, and denies any obligation to future generations who will live with the consequences.
If we took Lockwood’s ethic seriously, we would be strengthening climate protections, not dismantling them. A decent guest leaves a place better — or at least not worse — than they found it. Right now, our government is breaking that most basic rule.
Terry Hansen
Grafton, Wisconsin