
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday plans to repeal the legal framework that underpins its power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Subscribe to read this story ad-free Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content. "President Trump will be joined by Administrator Lee Zeldin to formalize the rescission of the 2009 Obama-era endangerment finding,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a briefing on Tuesday.
Main Idea: The EPA plans to repeal its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases warm the planet and endanger public health, a move that could weaken major U.S. climate rules.
Key Points:
Repealing EPA climate rules could let more pollution from cars, power plants, and methane leaks, which may raise health risks and make heat, floods, and fires worse for households and workers.
Some drivers and businesses could face lower near-term costs for vehicles and compliance if the rollback survives court challenges.
Rate how each entity in this article affected the American people.
Named EPA administrator leading and formalizing the rescission.
Named as the president joining the announcement and central to the deregulatory move.
Central agency taking the concrete action to repeal the endangerment finding and related emissions rules.
Central to the story through the controversial report the EPA used in its arguments.
Major environmental group preparing to sue and strongly criticizing the repeal.
Named official tied to the commissioned report underpinning the EPA’s draft reasoning.
White House press secretary quoted announcing and characterizing the planned action.
Comments here are the same thread shown when this article appears in The Pulse.
No comments on this article yet.
Sign in to commentScientific society publicly rebutting the EPA-related report and defending climate science.
President of The Heartland Institute quoted backing the repeal.
Cited as issuing a report concluding the endangerment finding was accurate.
Mentioned because West Virginia v. EPA narrowed EPA authority, affecting the legal context.
Named conservative think tank publicly supporting the change.