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.

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

Why EDF is exploring marine carbon dioxide removal


The oceans are a massive carbon sink. Researchers, companies and governments are exploring whether we can engineer coastal and ocean systems to store even more carbon. But while the ocean presents us with great possibilities, it’s also a complex system where human interventions can impact everything from the ecological (species’ interactions or the habitats they depend on) to the socio-economic (food systems or economic livelihoods).  

EDF has a track record of coordinating collaborative research on natural carbon storage systems in the ocean to understand both their role in carbon sequestration and their potential to generate ecological and socio-economic benefits, as well as any associated risks.  

We’re now taking a similarly holistic approach to exploring the potential of technical approaches to marine carbon dioxide removal (or, mCDR). Our aim: to identify the areas with the greatest potential to accelerate innovation with minimal risks to people and nature.  

mCDR: different methods to increase carbon sinks 

Marine CDR is a manmade intervention in the marine environment that changes the biology, chemistry or physics of the surface ocean resulting in the net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A few ideas have been suggested based on existing knowledge of ocean science. For example:  

  • Using fertilizers like iron sprinkled in the water in large quantities could encourage the growth of phytoplankton, microscopic marine plants, that, by sinking or being consumed, could facilitate the movement of carbon to the deep sea.  
  • Releasing minerals into surface waters that amplifies the slow natural weathering of rocks like limestone or basalt could help boost ocean’s alkalinity and increase carbon sequestration rates in the ocean.  
  • Pumping surface water to deeper depths could take carbon dioxide the ocean has absorbed from the atmosphere and mimic the natural process of phytoplankton sinking when they die.  

While these innovations seem promising, changing natural processes can result in a host of hard-to-determine impacts. For example, scientists don’t yet know whether artificial fertilization and growth could result in carbon export to the deep ocean. Therefore, we need to be cautious and examine not only the efficacy of carbon removal, but also impacts on marine life and human health. There are also complex ethical considerations associated with undertaking many of these approaches, from economic costs to impacts on livelihoods and food security across both short and long timescales. It’s critical to understand the risks as well as who will benefit, and who will bear the costs as decisions to continue research or deployment are being made.   

Why it’s time to examine mCDR’s efficacy and impacts 

It’s clear that holding warming below 2 degrees Celsius through emissions reductions and the energy transition alone will be difficult. We see a potential role for mCDR in contributing to stabilizing the climate and reaching net zero goals in the long term, which requires gaining a better understanding of benefits and risks in the short term. More and more organizations are working on mCDR, in large part driven by significant interest in the voluntary carbon market. And while funding is currently focused on evaluating the efficacy of carbon removal, we lack a solid scientific basis upon which to make reasonable decisions.  

A strong scientific foundation is critical to speeding and scaling CDR solutions. But speeding and scaling down the wrong path can ultimately reduce confidence in entire solution pathways, as well as lead to environmental harms. EDF wants to help to establish, guardrails, governance and policies to help develop a responsible research program that would allow thoughtful consideration of the full scope of both climate and ecological and socio-economic implications of mCDR development.   

EDF applies a systems perspective in examining climate solutions, with mCDR fitting within our existing and complementary efforts related to natural climate solutions, emissions reductions, carbon markets and solar geoengineering methods. We also have a long track record of working with academe, industry, governments, other NGOs, community groups and other civil society organizations to provide society with the understandings required to make science-based decisions.   

While EDF is not supporting widespread deployment of mCDR methods at this time, we are engaging in the following ways: 

  • Assessing research needs, contributing to research, advocating for research code of conduct, and supporting the development of rigorous standards for assessing the safety of any research in this space.  
  • Examining permitting and regulatory needs to help inform recommendations and policies.  
  • Developing effective engagement strategies with communities and interested parties around mCDR research. 
  • Creating a holistic framework to evaluate different benefits, risks and tradeoffs of different types of mCDR.  
  • Advocating for the developing of a robust federal research initiative on marine CDR 

Emissions reduction remains EDF’s number one priority and primary focus. However, as we work to address near term warming and with it limit some of the most worrisome impacts of climate change that we’re already experiencing, we need to research new technologies that show promise. Instead of jumping into mCDR with a Gold Rush mentality, it’s critical to develop an evaluative framework for looking at the impacts of these new technologies across the multiple dimensions that affect the environment and people’s wellbeing and engage civil society in the process. 

Also posted in Geoengineering, News, Oceans / Authors: , / Comments are closed

Why it’s time to explore the potential impacts of Solar Radiation Modification

Photo: Pezibear

The impacts from climate change will continue to escalate in the years ahead, and a growing number of scientists, philanthropies and companies have become interested in strategies to lower global temperatures more quickly. One of the options is reflecting some sunlight back into space.  

Because the consequences of Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), as it’s called, are hard to project, further study is critical before any action is seriously considered.  

While driving the transition to clean energy sources and rapidly reducing climate pollution remain EDF’s major foci, we also need to understand the implications of trying to directly influence earth’s temperature through this technology. That’s why EDF is embarking on an ambitious research program to learn more about SRM and its potential impacts. It is critical that decision makers and the public have a better understanding of the potential implications of deploying SRM before it is seriously considered.  

This work does not mean EDF supports deployment of SRM or other geoengineering strategies. However, these ideas may be increasingly considered in the next few decades, so it’s essential we understand the potential impacts. We need solid scientific information that’s accessible to decision makers in all countries to form the basis of future decisions about the use of this technology. 

Read More »

Also posted in Geoengineering, News / Comments are closed

How to improve soil modeling to maximize climate and farm benefits

Credit: Zoran Zeremski/iStock

Efforts to curb agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and increase soil carbon storage are picking up steam to help mitigate the impacts of climate change. To have maximum impact, we need ways to reliably quantify their outcomes. 

Direct measurement of the impacts of climate smart agricultural practices are imperative to instill confidence, but they aren’t forward-looking and can’t be done everywhere. Enter the use of process-based models (e.g., DNDC, DayCent) to estimate these changes more rapidly and across broader areas.  

Process-based models are useful tools, but they have limitations, and many researchers and practitioners remain uncertain about how to use them most effectively. Yet, while skepticism in their accuracy remains a challenge, interest in them is skyrocketing, making it even more important that the community work together on their improvement.  

A new report led by Environmental Defense Fund digs into how carbon project developers and companies are using process-based models across projects to explore current challenges, identify knowledge gaps and recommend improvements.  

Read More »

Also posted in Agriculture, Innovation, News / Read 1 Response

Strong scientific foundations, as well as strong science-based markets, make successful nature-based climate solutions possible

Forester examines trees

Daniel Balakov, iStock

This post is authored by Brian Buma, Senior Climate Scienist, Environmental Defense Fund.

Nature is vital to our success in fighting climate change and its real-world impacts. To unlock nature’s climate potential, we need investments to go to impactful nature-based climate solutions (NbCS), which refer to strategies to conserve, restore or improve the management of natural and working ecosystems for their climate benefits.

However, in a research paper recently published by myself and others, we found markets for NbCS were getting ahead of the science. In particular, we found many NbCS where carbon crediting was proposed or implemented had questionable scientific foundations.

We need NbCS to work, and we’re spending tens of millions in the hopes they do. Yet as our study shows, questions remain on how we can achieve the best ground-level outcomes and maximize the enormous potential of these solutions to lower greenhouse gas concentrations.

To illustrate how NbCS can work successfully, we need to look at science and implementation and understand how these two key components are different, but also interconnected.

Let’s start by thinking about your car.

Read More »

Also posted in Carbon Markets, Forest protection / Comments are closed

Cherry blossoms: a microcosm of the global climate crisis

Cherry blossoms in Washington, D.C. reached peak bloom extremely early this year. Photo by Ilissa Ocko

(This blog was co-authored by EDF Climate Scientist Fiona Lo)

Washington D.C.’s famous cherry blossoms are once again blooming earlier than expected.  

In fact, this year’s peak bloom occurred two and a half weeks earlier than the average over the past 100 years, due to near-record warm temperatures in March. 

This ranks as the second earliest peak bloom on record. Even the cherry blossom bud cycle occurred faster than any other year in the last two decades.  

So what is happening and why is this significant?  

Here we break down what you need to know about cherry blossoms and climate change. 

Read More »

Also posted in Agriculture, Basic Science of Global Warming, Extreme Weather, News / Comments are closed