A Breakthrough in US Climate Policy: Greenhouse Gases Are No Longer a Problem

Barely a month after the initiative, Lee Zeldin, the new head of the EPA—the author of the Holy Grail epithet—appointed in January, announced that federal law does not require state agencies to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in any way. Instead of addressing the scientific findings, the change is supposed to be based on a precedent-setting 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (which preceded the EPA's position), which held that the government can—but does not have to—regulate such emissions. And since it can, but does not have to, it will not.

The proposal to repeal the 2009 position, presented on Tuesday, will likely be presented as a significant step toward improving the economic situation. This echoes the arguments of opponents of any climate policy, who have blamed it for the decline—real or imagined—of many economic sectors, from traditional energy and the automotive industry to certain energy-intensive and emission-intensive markets. The Republican Party blamed the architects of this policy for rising unemployment and price spikes.

Although Tuesday's announcement only refers to a "proposal" for changes, it is being criticized by both staunch climate change advocates and more moderate Republicans. "If the message about the threat posed by climate change is ubiquitous, then this administration should recognize it," ABC quoted Christine Todd Whitman, who headed the EPA under President George W. Bush, as saying. "What they're doing is the opposite of what the EPA was created to do," she added.

\n

The dismantling of the environmental protection system won't end there; quite the opposite. In mid-July, the EPA announced it would reduce its workforce and dismiss nearly a quarter of the team the new administration took over in January of this year. Among other things, the entire research and development department the agency had at its disposal will be eliminated. While it is intended to be replaced by a new one – "applied science and environmental solutions," both Democrats in Congress and EPA union members claim that the agency's new structure will be political rather than scientific.

In the spring, EPA executives listed over 30 potential environmental regulations and documents that could be amended or repealed. As a result, today's American media is awash with information about seemingly minor decisions by the Agency, which nevertheless contribute to a panorama of a rapid liberalization of regulations intended to protect the environment—and, incidentally, the health of Americans. For example, in recent weeks, regulations regarding the monitoring of methane leaks in fossil fuel industries have been loosened, deadlines for companies to comply with regulations regarding the handling of coal ash have been extended, and plans are underway to reinstate dicamba-based herbicides, which the EPA had withdrawn from the market.