Trump administration expected to say greenhouse gases aren’t harmful

The administration of President Donald Trump is preparing to upset a fundamental scientific determination on the damage of greenhouse gases which underlies the ability of the United States government to slow down climate change.

A proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to modify the so-called “endangering conclusion” was sent to the White House on June 30, a spokesman for AFP told.

An advertisement is expected to be imminent. Here is what you need to know – and what is at stake if the conclusion is overthrown.

What is the conclusion of endangering?

The 1970 Clean Air Act has enabled the EPA to regulate “air pollution which could reasonably be planned to endanger public health or well-being”.

For decades, the law applied to pollutants such as lead, ozone and soot.

But while the science of the climate around the dangers of greenhouse gases that trampled on heat advanced in the 2000s, a coalition of non -profit states and groups asked the EPA to include them under the law, focusing on motor vehicles.

The question reached the Supreme Court, which judged in 2007 that greenhouse gases are qualified as air pollutants and ordered the EPA to review its position.

This led to the conclusion of 2009 endangerment, which declared that greenhouse gases a threat to public health and well-being, based on crushing scientific consensus and research evaluated by peers.

“This 2009 observation constituted the basis of all subsequent EPA regulations,” Meredith Hankins, principal climate and energy law for the councat of activist resources, told AFP.

“They have published greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicle exhaust emissions, chimney emissions from power plants – all these individual regions are found until the end of the 2009 endangerment.”

What is the Trump administration doing?

The endangering conclusion resisted several legal challenges, and although Trump’s first administration planned to reverse it, they finally retained themselves.

But the observation is now a direct target of the 2025 project, a far -right governance plan, followed closely by the administration.

In March, the EPA under the administrator Lee Zeldin announced an official review of the conclusion.

“The Trump administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security and the freedom of our people for a program that erases our industries, our mobility and our choice of consumption while benefiting adversaries abroad,” he said.

The government should cancel the previous conclusion that greenhouse gases endanger public well-being.

He will argue that the economic costs of the regulations have been undervalued and minimize the role of American emissions of motor vehicles in climate change.

In fact, transport is the largest source of American greenhouse gas emissions.

“If vehicle emissions do not pass for the contribution to climate change, it is difficult to imagine what would do it,” Dena Adler told the Institute for the integrity of politicians at New York University to AFP.

“It is fatalistic to avoid taking the many actions that could cumulatively repair climate change, because none of them can individually solve the entire problem.”

Since 1970, the United States has issued more vehicle-based greenhouse gases than the following nine countries combined, according to an analysis of the Institute for Policy Integrity which will soon be published in full.

Could they succeed?

In March, the EPA said that it would rely on recent court decisions, including a historic decision of 2024 which reduced federal regulatory power.

However, legal experts say that the administration is faced with a difficult battle.

“It will take a few years for the rule to be finalized and will end up the Supreme Court for examination,” said Adler.

“If the EPA loses before the Supreme Court, it is returned and the EPA brings it back to the drawing board” – at what time the term of Trump can approach its end.

To succeed, the high court may have to cancel its own 2007 decision which led to the conclusion of the endangerment.

None of the judges who wrote the majority opinion remain on the bench, while three dissidents – John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – still serve, and could not carry out a journey to upset the initial decision.

Even then, market forces can blunt the impact of any decline.

“Public services making long-term investments and companies buying capital goods that should be used for decades will not base these decisions on short-term policy changes,” said John Tobin-de la Puente, professor at the Cornell University business school.

This is particularly true when these swings are against commercial trends and could be canceled by a future administration, he added.

© 2025 AFP