EPA’s 2009 “Danger Discovery” Under Threat
The Trump administration is moving toward revoking the EPA’s 2009 “danger discovery,” which is considered by some to be one of the most unscientifically regulated frameworks in recent years. This development, reported recently, follows when the Environmental Protection Agency made a plan to abandon foundational federal climate policies that categorized greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, as harmful to human health.
If this action succeeds, it will significantly restrict the federal government’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from vehicles, power plants, and various industries. This outcome has likely caused concern among climate advocates. Some might even say it was only a matter of time before someone challenged this overreach.
Reflecting on 2009, we remember how the Obama-era EPA was influenced by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which essentially propelled regulators into shaping America’s energy future. This “danger discovery” posited that CO2, a fundamental element for life on Earth, was labeled as a pollutant, thereby suggesting a risk to public health.
This broad regulatory action wasn’t rooted in groundbreaking scientific discoveries but rather emerged from a political agenda cloaked in environmental rhetoric. The ruling provided a legal foundation for numerous regulations, from vehicle emissions to power plant controls, all intended to stifle the fossil fuel sector and advance a vision of a “clean energy” future that might seem unrealistic to some.
Now, the Trump EPA, led by administrator Lee Zeldin, seems ready to upend this framework. Zeldin’s draft argues that the EPA has overstepped its boundaries with such sweeping declarations.
The proposal emphasizes legal arguments suggesting that the EPA lacks the authority to make extensive claims about greenhouse gases without legislative approval. This directly challenges the 2007 Supreme Court decision, which, critics argue, allowed unelected officials too much power to regulate economic activity. Additionally, it’s worth noting that the Cheron deference, a principle adopted in 1984 that required courts to defer to regulatory interpretations of ambiguous laws, was abolished just last year but had still been influential.
Even Rep. John Dingell, who co-authored the Clean Air Act, made it clear that the intent was never to regulate CO2 under this law.
Nonetheless, environmental advocates are likely to take this dispute to court, complicating efforts to overturn the finding. The EPA must navigate a complex procedural landscape dictated by the Administrative Procedure Act while activists assert that climate change has intensified since 2009, linking it to current extreme weather events.
It’s important to highlight that the Trump administration hasn’t entirely disregarded climate change; rather, it questions the EPA’s legal authority to act as a climate authority. What’s next, could water vapor be labeled as a pollutant too, if Congress isn’t involved in regulating CO2?
This situation illustrates the larger absurdity of the energy transition. The original danger discovery was intended to push a shift from reliable fossil fuels to potentially inefficient renewable sources like wind and solar power that may not adequately support modern energy demands. The U.S. could be the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, but even if we eliminated emissions overnight, global temperatures might barely shift without coordinated action from countries like China and India.
Many Americans are feeling the impact of soaring energy costs and less reliable power grids. By retracting the “danger discovery,” the economy may find more freedom to innovate outside of restrictive EPA oversight, allowing market-based solutions to drive energy and climate advancements.
This proposal represents a significant effort to untangle the web of control over U.S. energy resources. While it will be neither quick nor easy, and opposition will be fierce from climate advocates, if the Trump administration succeeds, it could signify a win for pragmatism over rigid environmental dogma—a push for innovation rather than regulation. Certainly, a challenging battle lies ahead, but it’s a discussion worth having and has been a long time coming.
