Trump Revokes Landmark Obama-Era Climate Ruling
In a significant shift for US environmental policy, President Donald Trump has overturned the 2009 'endangerment finding' that established greenhouse gases as a threat to public health. This reversal, announced on February 12, 2026, from the Oval Office, marks what the White House describes as the 'largest deregulation in American history.' As the UK watches closely amid its own net-zero ambitions, this decision could ripple across global climate efforts, affecting everything from vehicle emissions to international trade.
Background on the Endangerment Finding
The original 2009 ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Barack Obama came at a pivotal moment. With Congress gridlocked on climate legislation, the EPA declared six key greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide and methane—a danger to human health and welfare. This 'lynchpin,' as former EPA attorney Meghan Greenfield describes it, became the legal foundation for a wide array of federal regulations.
From stricter fuel economy standards for vehicles to controls on power plants, oil and gas operations, landfills, and even aircraft emissions, the finding underpinned America's push to curb planet-warming pollution. It enabled the Obama administration to implement measures without needing congressional approval, shaping the US response to rising global temperatures.
Trump's Rationale and Immediate Claims
Speaking directly to the nation, Trump lambasted the ruling as a 'disastrous Obama-era policy' that 'severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for consumers.' He linked it to the Democrats' Green New Deal, dubbing it 'one of the greatest scams in history.' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed this, projecting savings of over $1 trillion in regulatory costs and a $2,400 reduction per vehicle for automakers.
Administration officials argue this deregulation will lower energy and transport prices, boosting economic competitiveness. For the auto sector, already reeling from previous rollbacks, it's positioned as a lifeline allowing manufacturers to produce less efficient but cheaper cars.
Environmental and Health Backlash
Environmental groups have swiftly condemned the move as the most aggressive climate rollback yet. Peter Zalzal from the Environmental Defense Fund warned it could impose $1.4 trillion in extra fuel costs on Americans due to dirtier, less efficient vehicles. More alarmingly, their analysis predicts up to 58,000 additional premature deaths and 37 million more asthma attacks from worsened air quality.
Former President Obama, rarely weighing in on successors' policies, took to X (formerly Twitter) to criticize the repeal: 'Without it, we'll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change—all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.' John Kerry, ex-climate envoy, told the BBC that Trump's approach 'will cost lives,' underscoring the human toll of prioritizing industry over science.
Legal and Industry Challenges Ahead
The reversal isn't without complications. Environmental advocates, including the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, plan immediate court challenges, arguing the decision ignores overwhelming scientific consensus on climate risks. Columbia University's Michael Gerrard, a climate law expert, notes that while this cements prior relaxations—like eased fuel economy rules—it creates uncertainty for US automakers eyeing export markets.
'Nobody else is going to want to buy American cars' if they're less efficient, Gerrard said, highlighting potential sales hits in Europe and Asia, where stricter standards prevail. Ironically, the Trump team previously used the 2009 finding to block states from enacting tougher carbon laws, invoking federal preemption. Now, scrapping it could empower subnational action but also invite regulatory chaos.
Broader Implications for Global Climate Action
For the international community, including the UK, this rollback signals a deepening US retreat from climate leadership. As COP conferences loom, America's wavering commitment—already strained by Trump's Paris Agreement exit—could embolden other nations to slacken ambitions. Yet, it might also galvanize allies; the EU's Green Deal, for instance, imposes border carbon taxes that could penalize US exports.
Economically, the fossil fuel sector stands to gain, with reduced oversight on methane leaks and coal plants. But analysts question the long-term math: unchecked emissions accelerate extreme weather, sea-level rise, and biodiversity loss, costs that dwarf short-term savings. A World Resources Institute report estimates global inaction could shave 2-3% off GDP by 2050.
In the US, this move aligns with Trump's 'America First' ethos, prioritizing domestic industry over multilateral pacts. However, with 70% of Americans supporting climate action per recent Pew polls, public backlash could mount, especially as wildfires and floods intensify.
What's Next?
As lawsuits pile up, the Supreme Court—now more conservative—may ultimately decide the finding's fate. For now, Trump's deregulation underscores a polarized climate debate: economic freedom versus planetary health. In the UK, where the government eyes 2030 emission cuts, this serves as a cautionary tale of policy reversals' perils.
Everythiiing.com will continue monitoring developments, from court filings to industry shifts. Stay tuned for updates on how this reshapes the fight against global warming.
(Word count: 752)
