Medical and environmental advocacy groups are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its recent decision to withdraw a 2009 scientific determination that climate change poses a danger to human health. The lawsuit, filed on February 18 by the American Public Health Association (APHA), the American Lung Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others, argues that the agency’s reversal ignores established science and jeopardizes public safety.
The Significance of the “Endangerment Finding”
The 2009 “endangerment finding” was pivotal in establishing the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This ruling, backed by the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, recognized carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants subject to regulation. The finding directly enabled emission standards for vehicles, which in 2022 accounted for 28 percent of total U.S. emissions. By rescinding this finding, the EPA removes a key legal basis for future climate regulations.
The Lawsuit’s Core Arguments
Plaintiffs assert the EPA has a clear duty to safeguard public health, and that the scientific evidence demonstrating climate change’s harm is conclusive. As APHA CEO Georges Benjamin stated, “The science is clear; climate change and air pollution threaten everyone’s health.” The lawsuit claims the EPA’s decision disregards this reality, potentially weakening or eliminating future rules on carbon emissions from cars, trucks, and other sources.
The Potential for Escalation
This legal challenge could reignite a high-stakes battle over climate regulation, potentially reaching the Supreme Court again. Should the plaintiffs prevail, the EPA may be forced to reinstate the endangerment finding, preserving its ability to regulate greenhouse gases. If the case reaches the highest court, it would test the judiciary’s willingness to uphold climate protections against political rollback.
The EPA declined to comment on the lawsuit when contacted by Scientific American, adhering to its policy of not addressing active litigation.
In essence, this lawsuit represents a critical attempt to defend science-based climate policy against political interference. The outcome will determine whether the EPA retains the legal tools needed to mitigate the health impacts of global warming or whether those protections will be dismantled.
