The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday a proposal to cancel a breakthrough legal opinion, which treats virtually all its provisions regarding the limitation of climate change.
This transfer ended with EPA regulations regarding greenhouse gases emitted by cars, as well as cutting the principles limiting the emission of power plants and control the release of methane by oil and gas companies.
“If it is finalized, today’s announcement would be the greatest deregulation in the history of the United States,” said EPA Lee Zeldin administrator on Tuesday at a truck dealer in Indianapolis.
“We don’t have such power to decide as an agency that we will fight global climate change, because we give ourselves this power.”
“Finding a threat” in 2009 was found that greenhouse gases threaten public health and social welfare, determining the legal basis to regulate them as air pollution under the pristine air act. EPA’s up-to-date proposal hits this foundation and claims that the pristine air act does not give the agency the right to regulate greenhouse emissions.
“This is not only an attack on science, but for common sense,” said Zealan Hoover, a former EPA administrator advisor under the leadership of President Joe Biden. “The national climate assessment provides over 2,000 pages of detailed evidence that climate change is harmful to our health and prosperity, but you can also ask millions of Americans who have lost their homes and sources of income for extreme fires, floods and storms that only get worse.”
Zeldin said that he aims to balance economic growth with environmental protection and that EPA is involved in maintaining pristine air and water.
Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trading group that represents almost all American national and foreign car manufacturers, studies this proposal, but generally supports the change of politics, said President John Bozzella in a statement.
“There is no doubt that the provisions regarding the emission of vehicles finalized as part of the previous administration are not possible and should be changed to reflect ongoing market conditions, in order to maintain a competitive automotive industry in America and to maintain the industry on the vehicle selection path and lower emissions,” said Bozzella.
Discovering the threat has long been the goal of libertarians and many conservatives who want to limit the rules that they consider burdensome.
“This is a very expensive regulation,” said Diana Fury Furytgott -roth, director of the Energy, Climate and Environment at Heritage Foundation, a conservative Think Tank.
“Finding a threat should be withdrawn because it is now responsible for the provisions that increase the costs of energy and increase transport costs and disproportionately charged with poor, burdened with farmers and the burden of small companies,” she added.
Myron Ebell, chairman of the American Lands Council, The conservative spokeswoman said that repeal is the key to strengthening Trump’s energy heritage.
“Trump lit REMA REMA, and then Biden Unds The Trump Recs and reduced the Obama REM, and now Trump withdraws REMY BIDEN and processes them,” said Ebell, which led the transition team to EPA during the first Trump administration. “If the discovery of a threat is withdrawn, this ping-pong match will be much more difficult for the future democratic administration or the President of the Green Republican.
While EPA under Zeldin argued that the provisions regarding the provisions of the vehicle resulting from the threat determination cost over $ 1 trillion, critics claim that estimates do not take into account the benefits of avoiding emissions. As part of Biden, the agency stated that the benefits of such provisions will exceed the costs of $ 1 to 2055, when it includes such effects, such as avoiding premature deaths and hospital visits due to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
The discovery of a threat was at the Center for Political Struggle for climate change for over 15 years. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled Massachusetts against EPA that the agency had the right to regulate carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases as pollution in accordance with the Clean Air Act. EPA issued a threat two years later, and then established carbon limits of vehicles and power plants.
Experts say that passing after finding a threat is a risky legal movement. But if the administration is successful, it would eliminate the key obstacle to the implementation of the Trump energy program.
“They believe that this is a holy grail to get rid of the whole thing in one go, and not the need to weaken the rules one by one,” said Richard Revesz, professor of law at the University of New York and former administrator of the Information Regulation Office at the White House. “It’s like betting on this great thing, but if you lose, you’ll end up empty -handed.”
Kenny Stein, Vice President for Politics at the Conservative Institute for Energy Research, said that the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts against EPA issued a shaky legal argument and was challenged by newer judgments.
The Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 struck the principles of the power plant from the time of Obama, saying that in order for the agency to take advantage of a wide new authority – such as the regulation of greenhouse gases – the congress must clearly give him this authority.
“Thanks to the huge change in the skin of the Supreme Court, I think that if the case has reached the Supreme Court on this subject, Massachusetts against EPA He would be quite comprehensively mastered – said Stein.
The EPA proposal now begins a 45-day period of public comments, after which the agency must answer before sending the final version.
“We want to hear from American public opinion to finalize the regulation, which not only proposes to withdraw from finding a threat, but also all greenhouse gas emissions that occurred in light vehicles, medium and durable,” said Zeldin.
Revesz said that manufacturers will probably not stop investing in electric vehicle technology day by day, but provides a clear slowdown after the final version of the proposal.
The speakers together with Zeldin in the advertisement in Indiana emphasized the automotive industry as a motorcycle of the state economy.
“It is important to understand that what he really represents today, not only the correction of the course, but confirmation of the government of common sense and departing from excessive prejudice,” said Suzanne Jaworowski, Suzanne Jaworowski, said Suzanne Jaworowski.
Sworn environmental groups to challenge the revocation. David Doniger, a senior lawyer at Natural Resources Defense Council, a spokeswoman, said that his group is planning to submit comments and take EPA to court if they are not resolved.
“The law clearly includes greenhouse gases as air pollution, and the law clearly explains that the findings regarding the threat and contribution limit public health and science issues, and not to broad economic issues and politics,” said Doniger. “When they confirm the opposite, they will lose.”
Doniger said that the EPA principle can have long -term effects, even if it does not stay in court. There will be at least “another generation of dirty cars on the road” because companies offer more cars with high baking when this problem is dispute.
If the annulment survives the court challenges, This would leave future administrations unable to solve climate change using the pristine air act.
“You ask Americans who live through fires, floods, hurricanes, thermal domes, etc., not believing in what they are going through, not believing their own eyes,” said Doniger. “At some point, what they claim will look like people that he will be strangely false and uncontrolled.”
