EPA Sued Over Rollback Linked to “Thousands of Avoidable Deaths”
▼ Summary
– More than a dozen environmental and health groups have sued the EPA for repealing a 17-year-old “endangerment finding” that was the basis for federal climate regulations.
– The lawsuit, filed in the DC Circuit Court, also challenges the EPA’s elimination of greenhouse gas emission requirements for new vehicles.
– The plaintiffs argue the Trump administration’s action is anti-science, illegal, and benefits the fossil fuel industry despite evidence of climate change’s deadly impacts.
– The EPA’s rule summary claims this deregulation is the largest in US history, saving over $1.3 trillion by 2055 and increasing consumer car choice by removing mandates.
– The agency’s messaging emphasized choosing “consumer choice over climate change zealotry,” a departure from its public health mission according to critics.
A coalition of prominent environmental and public health organizations has initiated a major legal challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency, alleging the agency has fundamentally betrayed its core mission. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, centers on the EPA’s recent decision to repeal a foundational scientific determination known as the “endangerment finding.” This 17-year-old finding has been the legal bedrock for all federal climate change regulations, and its removal effectively dismantles the framework for controlling greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. The plaintiffs argue this action is not only scientifically indefensible but will also lead to severe public health consequences.
The groups bringing the suit include the American Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club, among others. They have petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review and overturn the EPA’s move. Their central claim is that the administration is disregarding an overwhelming scientific consensus to illegally benefit the fossil fuel industry, directly endangering Americans by exacerbating climate-driven disasters like wildfires, hurricanes, and floods.
“Undercutting the ability of the federal government to tackle the largest source of climate pollution is deadly serious,” stated Meredith Hankins of the Natural Resources Defense Council. The lawsuit contends that the EPA attempted to create a false scientific debate by convening a panel of climate contrarians, a group that has since been disbanded, to challenge the well-established links between pollution, greenhouse gases, and public health risks.
The administration’s stance is consistent with a long record of dismissing climate science. During a recent period of cold weather, for instance, the president sarcastically questioned the reality of global warming on a social media platform. The EPA’s own summary of the new rule celebrates it as the single largest deregulatory action in American history, projecting trillions of dollars in savings by 2055. The agency claims that removing emissions standards will lower costs for automakers, savings that will then be passed on to consumers, increasing access to affordable vehicles.
A fact sheet released with the rule framed the decision as a victory for consumer choice over what it termed “climate change zealotry.” Public health advocates forcefully reject this characterization, warning that the calculated trade-off prioritizes industry profits over human lives. They assert that rolling back these protections will result in increased air pollution and accelerate climate change, leading to what experts describe as thousands of avoidable deaths from respiratory illnesses and other health impacts. The legal battle now moves to the courts, where judges will weigh complex arguments about regulatory authority, scientific evidence, and the statutory duty of the EPA to safeguard the population from environmental harm.
(Source: Ars Technica)
