Climate 411

Danger ahead: the Trump administration’s attack on EPA’s finding that climate pollution harms public health

On his first day in office, President Trump issued dozens of executive orders attacking the nation’s climate and clean air protections.

Buried in one of these orders is direction to the Environmental Protection Agency to make recommendations by February 19th on the “legality and continued applicability” of EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

The Endangerment Finding is EPA’s science-based determination that greenhouse gases – the pollution that causes climate change – harm public health and welfare.

The directive to reconsider the Endangerment Finding comes straight from Project 2025 and is both cynical and deeply concerning given the mountain of scientific evidence supporting the Finding, the devastating climate harms Americans are experiencing right now, and EPA’s clear obligation to protect Americans’ health and welfare.

Shortly after receiving President Trump’s directive, EPA’s acting Administrator summarily fired the agency’s independent Science Advisory Board – the very scientists who can speak to the extensive scientific basis supporting EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

The real-world consequences of any effort by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the Trump administration to destabilize the Endangerment Finding would be severe and unlawful and would hurt Americans across the country.

What is the Endangerment Finding?

In 2007, the Supreme Court determined that greenhouse gases are air pollutants within the unambiguous meaning of the Clean Air Act and that EPA must make a science-based determination as to whether greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, in 2009, EPA issued the Endangerment Finding, which determines that climate pollution threatens the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Here are a few things you should know about EPA’s finding:

It’s supported by extensive science

The Endangerment Finding is based on a vast amount of scientific evidence that climate pollution harms human health. It was adopted after extensive public process, including multiple opportunities for public input and evaluation of more than 380,000 public comments.

The final Endangerment Finding includes detailed information confirming that greenhouse gas pollution is driving destructive changes in our climate that pose a grave and growing threat to Americans’ health, security, and economic well-being, both now and in the future. These include health harms from increased smog, rising temperatures and extreme weather events, among other things.

Over time, the scientific evidence has only become stronger. The intergovernmental expert body charged by Congress with assessing the impacts of climate change on the United States has issued a series of National Climate Assessments, most recently by the Trump Administration in 2018 and the Biden Administration in 2023. The National Climate Assessments confirm that climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is causing extensive, and increasingly severe harms throughout the country.

EPA has also continued to document the science behind greenhouse gases’ contributions to climate change, including in earlier responses to requests that it reevaluate the Endangerment Finding (here and here) and in multiple actions establishing pollution standards for power plants, cars and freight trucks, and oil and gas facilities – some of which include scientific assessments that were completed within the last year.  And in legal filings supporting these actions, climate scientists have pointed to very recent scientific evidence that even more strongly confirms these climate pollution harms.

In short, the science unequivocally supports what so many Americans are already experiencing – climate pollution is causing harm in communities across the country. There is no question about the Endangerment Finding’s “continued applicability.”

Courts have repeatedly affirmed its Legality

Unsurprisingly, given the extensive evidence supporting it, courts have uniformly rejected legal challenges to the Endangerment Finding.

For instance, the finding was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012. Industry groups had challenged EPA’s use of scientific assessments, but the court held that EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence before it in “a rational manner.”

Then the Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari (review) that raised challenges to the Endangerment Finding in October 2013.

More recently, the D.C. Circuit again rejected challenges to the finding and the Supreme Court again denied review.

The findings have been the basis of agency decisions across administrations of both parties and have been the basis of numerous judicial decisions. As to the Endangerment Finding’s “legality,” the answer is also a clear and unequivocal “yes.”

Commonsense steps to cut pollution, protect communities

Beyond being grounded in the science, law, and the everyday experience of many Americans, the Endangerment Finding is important because it empowers EPA to do its job – protecting Americans from harmful climate pollution.

EPA has done just that since adopting the Endangerment Finding by taking commonsense steps to reduce climate pollution from large sources like power plants, cars and trucks, and oil and gas operations. These actions have been enormously successful in reducing pollution and delivering immediate benefits to Americans across the country.

It is vital that these commonsense measures remain in place. Recent EDF analysis looks at 11 key actions (including the foundational EPA climate protections mentioned above) that together will reduce more than 28 billion metric tons of climate pollution by 2055. That’s almost five times the total amount of annual emissions from the United States today.

New threats to the Endangerment Finding

President Trump’s efforts to reverse the Endangerment Finding come straight from Project 2025 – the infamous policy playbook crafted in part by Russell Vought, the new head of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. Targeting the Endangerment Finding is extreme, dangerous, and puts the important benefits mentioned above at risk. It also goes well beyond anything the first Trump administration undertook.

Undermining the Endangerment Finding would be inconsistent with the commitments EPA Administrator Zeldin made during his confirmation hearing. Despite EPA’s recent dismissal of its independent Scientific Advisory Board, Administrator Zeldin affirmed that “I am someone who believes strongly that we should work with the scientists, leaving the science to the scientists … Fortunately, at EPA, we do have many talented scientists who provide that research.” (Senate EPW Committee transcript page 34) He repeatedly committed to “honoring our obligations under the law,” and said that “we will have never done enough to ensure that our water and our air is clean, safe, and healthy. Whatever we do every day to achieve this objective, we need to wake up the next day looking for ways to do more.” (Transcript page 37)

It is simply not possible to square these statements with any effort to destroy a science-based finding, affirmed by the courts, that provides the foundation for EPA’s efforts to protect Americans’ health and well-being from harmful climate pollution today and going forward.

For more information, please see the letter and appendix of relevant documents EDF recently sent to EPA on the Endangerment Finding.

Posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Clean Air Act, EPA litgation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy, Science / Authors: / Leave a comment

President Trump’s attack on independent Inspectors General

A group of former Inspectors General for eight federal agencies just sued President Trump for illegally firing them.

President Trump fired about 17 independent Inspectors General en masse in a two-sentence email released Friday night, January 24th – including the Inspectors General for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Interior. This week, President Trump also fired the USAID Inspector General. Inspectors General are nonpartisan, and many of the 18 who have been fired were appointed by President Trump during his first term.

In the new lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, eight of the fired Inspectors General – for the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State, Education, Agriculture, and Labor, and the Small Business Administration – point out that President Trump violated the law by failing to provide 30 days’ notice to Congress and failing to provide the statutorily required explanation for the dismissals.

Under the Inspector General Act on 1978, the president must provide Congress advance notice and explanation in order to remove an inspector general. Just days after the mass firings, the Congressional Research Service updated its report on Removal of Inspectors General to state, “It is not yet clear how President Trump’s action on January 26, 2025, will ultimately be resolved,” and that “it does not appear that the Administration followed the congressional notice and waiting period requirements laid out in the IG Act.”

Here are a few examples of why President Trump’s purge of our national Inspectors General, and this lawsuit challenging it, are so important.

Inspectors General play an essential role in illuminating government fraud and wrongdoing

Inspectors General play a key role in ensuring accountability within federal agencies, including ensuring that those agencies ensure transparency and follow proper processes.

For instance, during the first Trump Administration, the EPA Inspector General investigated and uncovered numerous legal and process violations at the agency, including:

  • An improper rollback of air pollution standards for cars and trucks

An audit completed in 2021 by EPA’s Inspector General confirmed that the first Trump administration violated transparency, record-keeping, and other procedural requirements while rolling back federal Clean Air Act standards to limit air pollution from vehicles.

The EPA Inspector General’s report documented EPA’s failure to conduct technical analyses, follow established processes, and provide transparency in its actions and assumptions. The report also stated that “EPA did not follow its established process for developing regulatory actions,” including a failure to “conduct analysis related to executive orders on the impacts of modified GHG standards on vulnerable populations.”

That audit was prompted in part by a request from Senator Carper, demonstrating that Inspectors General can play an important role in investigating concerns identified by Members of Congress.

  • A flawed and dangerous lead-based paint strategy

In 2019, EPA’s Inspector General found that the first Trump administration’s lead-based paint strategy focused on shallow public relations efforts rather than actually protecting children’s health.

The Inspector General’s report described EPA’s failure to effectively implement and enforce the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule. That rule was designed to protect children from dust or chips of lead-based paint. Lead poisoning causes serious health problems, particularly for children’s brain development, and there is no safe level of exposure. In 1978, the U.S. banned lead-based paint for residential use, but the paint is still commonly found in houses built before 1978.

The Inspector General’s report found that EPA’s program lacked sufficient “objectives, goals and measurable outcomes to track progress and determine accountability,” and that “[e]ffective oversight and enforcement are needed to further reduce lead exposures from renovation, repair and painting activities.”

  • More legal loopholes and scandals

During the first Trump administration, the EPA Inspector General helped create accountability for the agency’s unlawful attempts to create a loophole for super-polluting glider trucks.

The EPA Inspector General also scrutinized Administrator Scott Pruitt’s many scandals, including spending taxpayer money on lavish travel and a $43,000 phone booth. These episodes illustrate the unique and crucial role that Inspectors General play in protecting the public from government corruption.

Posted in News, Policy / Authors: / Comments are closed

The Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities’ Road to COP30 at Belém: An Outlook for 2025

Kleber Karipuna, President of APIB and Coordinator of the Global Alliance, presenting strategies for effective participation at COP30. Photo by Bärbel Henneberger, EDF

By Bärbel Henneberger, Senior Partnerships Manager, Environmental Defense Fund

For Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) organizations of the Americas, 2025 brings fresh expectations. For the first time, the UNFCCC COP30 will take place in the Amazon Basin,  hosted by the city of Belém, in the Brazilian state of Pará. This will present a unique opportunity to cast global attention to the challenges and potential solutions unfolding in the wider Amazon region.

For context, the Amazon, the world’s largest rainforest, is also the largest and most vulnerable deforestation front. WWF estimates that 20 percent of its biome has been lost already, and that 27 percent will be without trees by 2030 if the current rate of forest loss continues. For IPLCs, the forest is the home that sustains all life.

Last week, during a workshop on Indigenous economy, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) organizations from South and Meso America met in the Ecuadorian Amazon to discuss the state of tropical forests and the role of IPLC´s sustainable initiatives. Despite all efforts, illegal timber and gold mining are still powerful drivers of deforestation and the destruction of entire landscapes in the Amazon. However, a call was made for the sustainable use of Nature, and concrete examples were presented of the actions that should be implemented to ensure sustainable forest management. IPLC organizations also agreed that Indigenous bioeconomy will be a key topic to be presented at COP30.

Read More »

Posted in Forest protection, Indigenous People, Latino partnerships, United Nations / Tagged , , , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Ecuador Announces Milestone in Halting Tropical Deforestation

Inés María Manzano, Minister of Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition of Ecuador and Eron Bloomgarden, CEO Emergent (LEAF Coalition) at the official signing event in Ecuador, January 29,2025. Photo by Santiago Garcia, EDF.

By Santiago García Lloré, Senior Manager of IPLC and Conservation Partnerships at EDF.

Ecuador is one of nine countries in the Amazon rainforest. It is also known as one of the most biodiverse countries in the world — its unique ecological heritage includes the famous Galápagos Islands.

Following Costa Rica, Ghana, and the State of Para in Brazil, Ecuador signed an Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA) under the LEAF Coalition’s carbon finance framework to reduce 3 million tons of carbon emissions in exchange for $30M. (3 million tons of carbon emissions roughly equal the annual emissions of about 570,000 average passenger cars.)

The deal covers four Ecuadorian jurisdictions and is a shining example of deploying carbon finance that advances equitable participation from diverse groups. In Ecuador’s case, this process has resulted in the inclusion of Afro-Ecuadorian communities, who, like many other Indigenous communities in the region, have traditionally been marginalized. This showcases progress toward a more inclusive and representative model.

EDF has been privileged to support Ecuador in this journey over the past several years. Our efforts have focused on building the technical capacity, policy frameworks, and stakeholder engagement processes needed to bring this ambitious program to life. Here are a few things we’ve learned that are critical to ensuring integrity and bolstering climate ambition.

Read More »

Posted in Carbon Markets, Forest protection, Indigenous People, Latino partnerships, News, REDD+ / Tagged , , , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Making Sense of the NCQG Outcome from COP29: A Critical but Insufficient Step Forward for Climate Finance

The UN climate talks in Baku delivered a new agreement on climate finance (the New Collective Quantified Goal, or NCQG), but it falls short of what science and justice demand. The headline target — mobilizing $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, with developed countries providing $300 billion— is only a fraction of what’s needed. For context, developing countries require an estimated $5.1-6.8 trillion through 2030 alone to address the climate crisis. 

Achieving these targets requires immediate action, well before 2035. With climate impacts accelerating and vulnerable nations already facing severe challenges, we need to build momentum quickly toward and beyond these goals. The Baku agreement takes important steps in recognizing critical climate finance quality issues —such as high borrowing costs and limited access— and provides a framework for addressing them. The launch of the “Baku to Belém Roadmap” needs to be a pathway for making near-term progress, particularly on reducing the cost of capital and improving access to finance.  

The work didn’t end in Baku. As we look toward COP30, the international community faces a critical challenge: rapidly scaling up both the quantity and quality of climate finance to unlock urgent climate action. This will require immediate, concrete steps from developed nations, international financial institutions, and the private sector to deliver resources at the speed and scale the crisis demands. Success depends on rapidly translating these commitments into action through strengthened international cooperation and innovative financial solutions.  Read More »

Posted in Climate Finance, Innovation, International, Just Transition, Policy, United Nations / Tagged , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Loss and Damage Finance: the FRLD and Transforming Climate Finance Quality

B4 FLRD Board meeting opening by Mrs. Maria Antonia Yulo-Loyzaga, Secretary of Environment & Natural Resources of The Philippines. Photo credit: Government of the Philippines

The newly established Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) represents more than just another funding mechanism – it’s an opportunity to reimagine how climate finance can work better for countries already experiencing the extreme impacts of climate change.  

As the Fund prepares for its “start-up phase” in 2025, it has the potential to address longstanding quality issues that have kept climate finance from making positive climate impact, which are more important than ever as the international community gets for COP30 and to triple finance to developing countries, from the previous goal of USD 100 billion annually, to USD 300 billion annually by 2035 and secure efforts of all actors to work together to scale up finance to developing countries, from public and private sources, to the amount of USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035. 

Here’s how:  Read More »

Posted in Climate Finance, Innovation, International, Policy, United Nations / Tagged | Authors: / Read 1 Response