A Climate Change with Matt Matern Climate Podcast

Welcome to A Climate Change – a show where we talk with change makers and thought leaders who are taking action to stop the existential threat of climate change. I’m your host. Matt Matern, so today we’re tackling one of the most consequential climate rollbacks in American history. The Trump administration’s plan to repeal the EPA is endangerment. Find, this landmark scientific finding issued in 2009 forms a legal foundation of every federal climate regulation from vehicle standards to power plant emissions, its repeal would not only roll back existing protections, but also strip future administrations of the authority to direct address climate change pollution in many different ways. So joining me are four of the nation’s leading climate defenders.

We’ve got Meredith Hankins, federal climate Legal Director at the NRDC, with over a decade of Clean Air Act experience. They’ve worked both as an engineer and as an attorney to develop and defend strong pollution standards. Welcome to the show, Meredith.

Thanks so much. Happy to be here.

And we’ve got Peter Zalzal, is a distinguished counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund. He leads EDF, legal and policy work to curb pollution and protect public health, collaborating with states, businesses and advocacy groups nationwide. Peter, welcome.

Thanks so much. Matt, glad to glad to be with you all.

And then we have Marvin Brown, who’s a senior attorney at Earth justice specializing in environmental law and civil rights law, a Yale Law grad and a former former federal clerk. He’s worked on cases from police brutality to environmental justice. Welcome to the program, Marvin.

Thank you so much for having me.

And Patrick. Drupp is director of climate policy at the Sierra Club. He advances federal climate and energy policy to accelerate clean energy, cut pollution, and strengthen us Climate Leadership. Welcome Patrick.

Thanks for having me.

Well, I kind of feel like I’m at a legal meeting here. I’ve got so many lawyers. Is very comfortable for me. I got a bunch of lawyers talking. So feels like my normal day job together. These folks will help help us unpack what this rollback means for our health, our economy and our future, and how the their organizations plan to fight back. Thanks everybody for joining. I want to remind viewers, if you have any questions, please throw them in the comments so you can be a part of the conversation, conversation.

So folks out there watching who may not follow the ins and outs of environmental law, what is really going or what’s going on back in 2009 the EPA made it official that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide, are dangerous to our health and had and and to our communities, and that finding is what gives the EPA the legal power to set limits on climate pollution from cars to power plants and factories. Now the Trump administration is trying to erase that finding altogether. If they succeed, it wouldn’t just roll back today’s protections.

It should take it could take away EPA ability to tackle climate pollution at all. We’re not sure exactly what’s going to happen. I’m going to be asking our experts on the panel as to how they see this playing out, assuming the worst case scenario occurs, which the endangerment by finding is stricken. So let me turn to our panel. Did I miss anything? What else should our audience understand about the endangerment finding and why it matters so much? Well, I’ll start with you, Meredith, and you can kick us off.

Sure. So as you already described, the endangerment finding is actually a pretty simple and straightforward legal and scientific conclusion that greenhouse gasses endanger public health and welfare, one would sink. That’s not under debate, but as we’re seeing now, perhaps it is, and what EPA was doing was really just exactly what Supreme Court told it to do in Massachusetts versus EPA in 2007 where the Court told EPA that unambiguously, greenhouse gasses could be considered pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That next step the endangerment finding was to say, yes, greenhouse gasses are pollutants.

And not only are they pollutants, they endanger public health and welfare, and therefore we are obligated to regulate them, it’s support. Started by 1000s and 1000s of pages of technical analysis and documentation the vast majority of climate scientists, it was true in 2009 and it is only more true now, as we have seen, climate science continue to get ever stronger. It’s pretty unbelievable that EPA is now trying to go back on its word and its obligation to protect public health, but that’s what we have before us today.

Well, I know that the IRA codified Massachusetts versus EPA explicitly defining greenhouse gasses as air pollutants. Shouldn’t that protect us? Or was it kind of legislative malpractice for the you know the law to not have an endangerment finding in there as well? But I guess Congress could over. Could have, you know, do that legislatively and turn it over with this current congress. What do you think I’ll go to Peter.

Thanks, Matt, yeah. I mean, there are a number of different things that it just, in our view, underscore the rock solid legal foundation that the endangerment finding rests on. You reference one of them. So there is explicitly in the inflation Reduction Act a definition of greenhouse gasses. There’s many others as well. So Meredith mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts versus EPA.

This is an unambiguous, clear finding from the Supreme Court that greenhouse gasses are air pollutants. EPA has tried to issue a proposal now under the Trump administration, to really directly reverse that, and we’ve had subsequent judicial decisions since then as well. So the DC Circuit considered whether the endangerment finding is lawful, upheld it. The Supreme Court didn’t review that. That happened again just a couple of years ago, and so we have a really consistent track record, both in legislation and in judicial decisions that affirm the endangerment finding.

So what do we see as the risk Marvin as to if, the, if the EPA was, in fact, to strike this endangerment finding, what, what’s likely to follow?

So immediately, there’s going to be legation over that. All of the groups on this call are deeply involved in drafting comments and making sure that EPA has the best information about not just the science of climate change, but then also the legal foundations for the endangerment we expect. You know afterwards, if they do take this proposal and make it final, all of the groups on this call will probably be engaged in litigation, along with states all across the country and other groups that are very interested in climate change and making sure that EPA does uphold its obligation to protect public health and public welfare, and we’ll see.

You know that litigation first go to the DC Circuit and maybe up to the Supreme Court, but I think it’s worth emphasizing that you know, there’s still a lot of actions that people can take at the local and state level to combat climate change. EPA is taking this step that is incredibly dangerous. It puts all of our lives at risk, and there’s a lot that we can all do to fight back against this.

Well, Patrick, in terms of how this plays out? We’re in the comments period, which is wrapping up soon, and explain, you know, for the audience, what the comments period is, why it’s important, and what what are, what are you hoping to do to make it more difficult for the EPA to to to wipe out this endangerment finding.

Yeah, so the comment, the open comment period is, is a standard part of pretty much every rule making that the any agency makes. It’s part of, you know, transparent governments and good government to have public input on the decisions that the that the administration is making. So right now, you know, we’re in that public comment period. There were public hearings, four days of them, just a week or two I’m almost forgetting when, but like a week or two ago, there were four days. Originally there was scheduled to be one day.

There was such an overwhelming amount of enthusiasm of people who wanted to get on and testify and show their support that they actually extended it for four days. And over those four days, you know, hundreds of people came on, you know, professionals and just concerned citizens to show that they don’t agree with what they. Administration is doing here that this is a dangerous step that they don’t agree with solidifying climate denial as the official position of the US government.

And there were only, you know, a handful. We could probably count them on our hands of people who supported the action, the open comment period for written comments is still open until September 22 our groups are collecting 1000s of comments, 10s of 1000s of comments from the general public. We’re also, as Marvin mentioned, writing technical comments, you know, that get into the legal aspects of things as well as, you know, the pseudoscience that they’re using to put forward this repeal. So it’s a really important part of just government. And you know, encourage people to to to to submit a comment. You know, speak up, reach out to your member of Congress.

You know, write a letter to your editorial board of your local paper. You know, post on social media like you don’t know how all of our organizations have toolkits and things for people to do that, to really get the word out there. Not just flood EPA, but, you know, flood the media in general, to let them to really make it clear to the public what’s going on.

Well, you know, just for the the audience sake, having litigated some situations where there were kind of public comment periods and it was so important to have facts that are in the record, because if you don’t have those facts in the record, you cannot argue them later. So what all of your organizations are doing are so vitally important, so that we have a factual record in which to argue down the road.

So thank you all for for doing that, and it’s telling that there’s only a few people willing to stand up and say that this endangerment theory or endangerment finding should go and that the weight of scientific opinion is so strongly weighted in that The favor of the positions that you all are taking that barely anybody is even willing to stand up there and say this is wrong. So even the oil companies admit that this CO two causes these problems. I mean, of course, famously, Exxon had those studies in the late 70s and early 80s showing that CO2 emissions would cause all these problems, and that they would go up to 430, parts per million in right like around 2020, and cause all the problems that we’re seeing with extreme weather and and increased heat and all this.

And like they knew. And the petro states, I mean, I went to COP28 I’m and Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi are to the, you know, are to the more progressive on this issue than the Trump administration, which is pretty batshit crazy. But, you know, let’s, let’s go to where this goes to next in terms of the the legal battle. And Meredith, what are your thoughts as to how likely is it that, assuming the EPA comes down against the endangerment finding that the courts are are going to uphold EPA decision.

Sure. So as Peter already previewed, you know, there’s a strong history already at both the Supreme Court and the DC Circuit of upholding the idea that EPA has not only the authority but the obligation to regulate greenhouse gasses. So we are feeling good about our chances that EPA is pretty disastrous rule will be overturned, at least in the DC Circuit. Of course, the Supreme Court is the elephant in the room here, but even the Supreme Court itself, back in 2007 told EPA that greenhouse gasses were pollutants, and that was not a case of Chevron deference that might have changed since then.

That was an unambiguous interpretation of the Clean Air Act. So if the Clean Air Act has not changed since 2007 which it has not, then the decision should come out exactly the same way. And EPA is attempts to repeal the endangerment findings should go down. And I do apologize my dog is barking in the background a little bit, so I might jump into someone else.

We haven’t. We haven’t heard your dog barking or he but I’m a little more concerned about it, because I went back and looked at the decision, and Roberts was an the dissent, and and a number of other people who are no longer on the court were were on the five, four side that one, and I’m concerned that the court has leaned by. Further to the right than it was. Peter, what’s your take on this?

Yeah, you know, just to underscore some of the points Meredith has made, the the foundation here for this action is incredibly strong. So this is a decision, the 2007 Massachusetts versus EPA decision. That’s an interpretation of the statute. So that’s statutory. Stare decisis is the interpretation of the statute that didn’t you know, say that the statute was unclear. It said it was clear in what you know, what was required from EPA. And so you know some of the subsequent decisions of the Court recently overturning the chevron doctrine, for instance, they don’t have a bearing on the questions that EPA considered at that point. So all of that remains clear.

It’s something that courts, including the Supreme Court, should be respecting. And as Meredith said, on the factual side, on the record side, there is just an overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting this action. So it’s hard to see how one could argue that it’s not well justified.

Well, I guess turning to Marvin, as far as the fact that the IRA, the inflation Reduction Act in 2022 codified that greenhouse gasses are air pollutants. Does that make us in a better position? You know, put, put the plaintiffs at a better position than they were in in Massachusetts versus EPA.

Um, it helps. It definitely helps show you know additional congressional intent to show that EPA should regulate greenhouse gasses. But it’s worth noting, as the Court did in Massachusetts B EPA, that the definition of air pollutant, the term that is being interpreted here, includes agents that can change the climate, and that was something that was added to the definition way back in the 1970s so it is clear for decades now, as the Court found in Massachusetts v EPA, that EPA Not only has the authority but also an obligation to regulate any type of air pollutant that endangers the public health and the public welfare.

And so thankfully, you know, we are resting, not just on a decision to add, you know, a definition from the IRA, but also decades of legal precedent, and also the fact that this was added to the Clean Air Act way back in the 1970s I was born in, you know, 80s, and so unfortunately, that was way before my time. But I’m thankful that, you know, folks back in the 70s had the foresight to notice that an air pollutant does include agents that can change the climate. It’s part of the explicit definition in the Clean Air Act.

It is a one of the amazing pieces of legislation that Congress has enacted. So when we bash Congress there, there are a few pieces. It’s a few jewels that they did create. So, you know, we give them credit where credit is due. Patrick, what are your thoughts on, on how the Trump administration and maybe the Court, the Supreme Court, deals with this.

I was perusing some of the dissents in Massachusetts versus EPA and for breadcrumbs as to how they might look at this. And some of them were saying, well, they’re polluting more over in China and India, and it’s it’s not our fault, and we’re not doing everything to change the climate, it’s other people. Do you see some of that kind of garbage happening, or some other act that might be more artful? Or can we hope for actual decency?

Yeah. I mean, as the only non lawyer on this call right now. I’m not gonna give any opinion on the litigation pathway, but you know, there’s a whole section of this endangerment finding proposal that’s a scientific rationale, quote, unquote, and that’s pretty weak, too, in addition to everything you heard you know, Meredith Peter and Marvin say about the legal strategy and how strong that is, the science doesn’t hold up, you know, they they have a bunch of cherry pick data, some misdirection, you know, it’s the straight old it’s an old playbook out of like, it reads like a 2010 climate denial blog, you know?

And you. It’s, it’s kind of ridiculous. It cites this study from the Department of Energy, a draft review of climate science that was illegally set up. And then, you know, reviewed, admittedly only in like two months, an incomprehensive review of all of climate science. You know, the endangerment climbing took years to come together. There’s been multiple IPCC reports, national climate assessments. All you have to do is look out the window, follow the news to know things are getting worse. So like none of the science, none of the citations, none of the foundation and the rationale for repealing this, they haven’t done anything to prove that climate that that that CO2 and climate change isn’t a threat. And that’s what they’re saying.

They’re just saying, you know, don’t worry, those wildfires that are getting worse and more frequent aren’t, aren’t dangerous to you. Don’t worry, sea level rise that’s making your house uninsurable on the coast isn’t, isn’t a problem, you know. But they haven’t backed that up with any actual scientific evidence whatsoever. And so, you know, I’ve faith in my my attorney colleagues to litigate this and take the best legal strategies, but they haven’t really done anything to prove the most basic rationale for actually going after this. And that’s because it’s a political stunt. You know, this is like red meat for for this administration, and it’s a political stunt designed to benefit fossil fuel companies and billionaire corporations that are polluting our communities.

Meredith, what’s the next step in this process, after the comment period ends? What will EPA do and what’s the timeframe for them to do it?

Sure. So once the comment period is is concluded, EPA is obligated to review all of the comments that were filed, all of the scientific evidence that was submitted into the docket, and they are required to respond to all of those those comments and evidence in their final rule, we have heard, and I know administrator Zeldin has mentioned that these are a priority and they are trying to finalize these rules by the end of the year. That is an insanely fast schedule, which I think speaks to the likelihood that they are not going to adequately address many of our comments and evidence.

You know, in a typical administrative rule making process takes upwards of two years. So to go from proposal to final rule in less than six months is pretty unbelievable. But if that, if that happens, and we do see a final rule out by the end of the year, the Clean Air Act has a specific provision on jurisdiction that all nationally applicable rules, including something like this, must be challenged in the DC Circuit, and under the DC circuit’s rules, we’ll need to file a petition for review within 60 days of the final rule, and then we’ll be off to The races in terms of litigation.

And in that interim period or after, is assume the EPA strikes, the endangerment finding, will, what will change immediately or will, will there be a possible say, hold put on that as far as any actions being taken, Peter?

So you know you referenced this at the at the start of the discussion, Matt, but there are a number of really vital that are part of this action at pollution standards for motor vehicles here On road, motor vehicles. So these are passenger vehicles like cars and trucks, also medium and heavy duty vehicles like freight trucks and busses. And so part of what EPA is proposing to do here is to propose, proposing to eliminate, completely eliminate, all of those standards. And that just has if the agency goes through with that during the same timeframe, has enormous consequences for people’s lives. In terms of more pollution.

As I think you all are well aware, the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the US. It’s also an enormous source of health harming pollution. So it means there’ll be more of that in our communities and the environment hurting people there’ll be it’ll mean higher cost for people, and it’ll mean lost jobs. So that’s what’s at stake here in terms of of the agency forward.

So for for example, pollution control devices on on cars, such as what catalytic converters and things like that, would no longer be required.

So it Well, I think it’s important to underscore that what EPA is repealing here, proposing to repeal are the greenhouse gas standards for vehicles. And so that would mean, yes, nothing, nothing that are in those standards that require vehicles to emit less. Pollution. Those are things that save people money. It means that, you know, people have to spend less money on gas as well. None of those would be required any longer for any vehicle. So there would be no standards at all, and that will mean a lot more pollution. When you don’t have standards, it means you get more more pollution.

I would think that most of the car companies would not be so brazen or to change everything. Well, it would cost them a lot of money to change, to pull all the pollution control devices off of for the cars, knowing that there’s a likelihood that this will be repealed or found, you know, improper at some point in time. You know, I think that in in the past, they had agreed to cooperate with the state of California, to adhere to California standards, along with the standards of bunch of other states.

Is there likelihood that they will do that again, or will they be targeted by the Trump administration for being going light on pollution?

Yeah, I mean on pollution, you know, bring back pollution, make America polluted again.

Well, we’ve certainly seen a number of concerning efforts by the administration on that front. But I want to just go back to your earlier point, Matt, that like businesses are making investment decisions based on the rational, predictable, stable framework that the endangerment finding helps to support. And those are investment decisions that are not just this year, next year, the following year. These are many years out ahead of us. And I think it’s a reflection, too, that we’re in a globally competitive marketplace.

Clean solutions are cheap solutions, and in order to be able to compete, American companies need to invest innovate. The endangerment finding has helped to do that, and so that’s why I think you see companies you alluded to this earlier really expressing doubt about this, this pathway that the administration is on, and looking for other opportunities to help, to support the investment in business decisions they’ve already made.

I think, from my experience, when I’m in other countries that don’t have kind of California, like pollution control devices, I really notice what it’s like walking around on the streets, breathing in the toxic stew of auto pollution. It’s it is so much worse in other countries than it is here, so I can’t imagine what it would be like if they we took all those pollution control devices off, and our air went back 50 years in terms of air quality. But Marvin, the EPA, I think, has argued that vehicle emissions are too small to make a measurable difference. How does that square with the science, and what does it mean for drivers and families?

Yeah, is does not square at all with the science, and it also doesn’t square with EPA own data, which you can go online and review, where they talk about the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. To just point to a recent report that was done by New York University’s Institute for Policy integrity. They did a analysis of emissions from the transportation sector, which I believe Peter mentioned earlier, is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and they found that over the last 50 years, the US has emitted more greenhouse gasses than the next highest emitting countries, just from its transportation sector alone, and with those nine highest emitting countries that I mentioned, that includes China, India, Brazil, Germany, all combined.

So the greenhouse gasses from the US transportation sector is incredibly large, also causes an incredible amount of damage. That report estimated that in 2022 which is the year that we have the latest complete amount of data, emissions from the US transportation sector alone cause about $350 billion in damages to the climate and Over $53 billion in health specific damages in the US, and that includes damage from heat stress or cardiovascular issues or smoke from wildfires. And so the US transportation system, contrary to what the administration is saying, is a significant.

Significant source of greenhouse gasses. And you know, not only is it a significant source of greenhouse gasses, from a legal standpoint, it doesn’t matter if it’s significant or not, because the law says that EPA has to regulate any air pollutant that causes any danger to public health or to public welfare. And so the question of is it significant or not is completely irrelevant. But if we want to talk about significance, we know that this is a major source of damage to our global climate and also to our health.

I guess there’s a lot to unpack there. One is that’s a huge amount of monetary damages in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Two, has there been any refutation of those figures by the administration or anyone associated with them? And and, I guess, you know, those are my two questions for now.

Yeah, so the administration tries to sort of ignore bad facts we see this. This is just, not just, you know, in this role, this is something we’re seeing constantly across different areas. And so they try and portray things as well. China is producing a lot of greenhouse gasses, or other countries are producing greenhouse gasses. It can’t ignore the fact that historically, the United States has been one of the largest producers of greenhouse gasses. And our transportation sector has been absolutely vital, and unfortunately, at the center of a lot of those climate harms.

Well, I guess the other thing to remember is how those things are cumulative. So what we may have been polluting back 2030, 4050, years ago is still up in the in the atmosphere today. So it’s not like we’re just looking at what happened last year. We’re looking at what happened for a very long tail period. And I’m not sure exactly what that is, but one of you educated folks will tell us, Peter?

Well, it, I was also going to just jump in and can come back to that on the question about ignoring facts and what’s in the record, Matt, you asked, like, is, you know, have they considered this, you know, additional pollution? No, the answer is no. It’s one of of, you know, the many things that makes this action unlawful.

There is not an assessment in in this proposal of the additional you know, climate pollution that will result from this, the figures that we’re sharing, you know, come from analysis that EDF and other groups have done, that EPA has done in the past, is not considered at all. The public health impacts of this action are not considered at all. That makes it unlawful, and it’s also just manifestly inconsistent with EPA mission, which is to protect public health and welfare.

Yeah, it’s, it’s shocking that here’s the agency that is supposed to be protecting our environment, just going completely in the other direction and essentially saying, pollute as much as you want. I see no limits in this But Peter, how do you see this repeal raising the cost for ordinary Americans in the long run, higher fuel bills, more extreme weather, lost clean energy, jobs.

Unfortunately, all of those, all of the above and and there is analysis, the administration’s own analysis, on many of these points. So there is EIA analysis from the Energy Information Administration. The administration actually cites in its proposal that shows that repealing these standards will increase gas prices by a quarter in 2035 and 76 cents by mid century.

So that means Americans are paying more in fuel costs, also in terms of lost jobs. So we’ve seen just a renaissance in US domestic manufacturing of clean vehicles, electric vehicles and batteries, $200 billion of investment over the last seven years, almost 200,000 jobs. So actions that reverse course on clean vehicles put those jobs at risk, and as as you said, it means more pollution and more harm that that are that are impacting communities and families across the country.

So Patrick, some industry groups, even fossil fuel trade associations, don’t want this repeal calling the endangerment finding settled law. Why might businesses prefer federal regulation to no regulation at all?

Yeah. I mean, I think businesses, more than anything, want stability and certainty, right? They want they plan things years out. Out. And so when stuff, there’s wild swings back and forth of standards, and, you know, protections from one administration to the next, that’s really difficult. How can you plan out 510, year investments when you don’t actually know what you’re going to be required to do? And so, you know, I think I don’t know what all these fossil fuel companies are thinking.

I all of the actions so far of this administration, this EPA, have been, you know, pretty much a gift to the fossil fuel industry, from deregulating mercury emissions to, you know, trying to deregulate coal plant wastewater to to this endangerment finding repeal. So, you know. But I think they, they simply want to know what, what’s gonna what’s what the regulatory you know landscape is gonna be for the next 510, years, and they know that going just wild swings back and forth is is not good for their business. It’s not good for their planning and their bottom line.

How would this affect the endangerment finding and repealing it affect methane emissions, and oil companies in particular, that are emitting tons of methane?

Yeah, I can, I can jump in on that. That, if that sounds, that sounds okay, Pat, yeah, so EPA also has regulated methane pollution from the oil and gas sector. And many, you know, many of the arguments that the agency is now making in proposing to repeal the endangerment finding, I think, would really call into question the methane standards that EPA has separately adopted for the oil and gas sector. But we have seen, you know, to your question, Matt, to Patrick’s point, we’ve seen the American Petroleum Institute come out and say the federal government has an important role to play in regulating greenhouse gasses.

It speaks to we might not agree exactly on what those standards should be, but it speaks to the point that Patrick was making about the importance of a stable and predictable regulatory framework. Because really, like, the problems don’t go away, right? Like we still have, you know, an urgent need to reduce this pollution. The administration is just trying to take away a tool that’s rational, predictable, has created a framework that has benefited, certainly the environment, but also many businesses.

So could I just jump in with one more thing on that point. You know, I think another issue that the regulated industry is concerned about is the chaos of 50 states. One of the original reasons the Clean Air Act was passed was because California had started regulating vehicle emissions, and automakers said, whoa, whoa. We don’t want to have to comply with 50 standards EPA, figure it out, and if EPA is now disclaiming that federal authority, it opens the door to more aodic, fractured regulation, and you can see that in the power sector as well.

In the Supreme Court case a few years ago, West Virginia versus EPA, we saw trade associations like the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor owned utilities, telling the Supreme Court that removing EPA authority would be chaos and that it was important to the power industry’s planning that they had this strong federal framework in place so they weren’t subjected to 50 states worth of tort nuisance liability, for example. So it’s another key part of that regulatory certainty is the importance of a federal framework.

Well, of course, it is part of the Trump administration’s ethos, I think, to to go after California anytime California is trying to regulate pollution, so I’m not sure there will let California regulate they’ll say the federal government has preempted the field, and you can’t jump in and you can’t regulate it. We’re going to let, no holds barred, pollute wherever you want, however you want, and you can’t. You can’t stop at states. What do you think about how does that play out? Meredith, I know that’s kind of gloom and doom, but it’s kind of what it looks like to me.

Sure. Well, it’s a little hard for EPA to claim they are occupying the field if they’re abandoning their posts by potentially repealing the endangerment finding saying the EPA has no authority to regulate greenhouse gasses, there’s no authority left to displace states like California from setting their own vehicle emissions. So in one of the many ways in which this proposal is sloppy and will have unintended consequences is this potential opening of the door to states like California to protect their own citizens, regardless of what EPA is doing.

That’s a good point. Marvin, how would this rollback affect America’s credibility and commitments on the global stage, especially when scientists say we’re already at a tipping point, at 1.5 degrees centigrade?

We’re warming. It’s very damaging. We know from research that, you know, other countries follow what the United States is doing and follow our lead. But I you know, do want to emphasize that you know, in the same way that the effects of climate change is real, the types of solutions that other countries are taking is also real. And we’re seeing the US, you know, sort of unfortunately lose its, you know, global leadership in this space, and seeing others step up and doing really amazing things.

You know, when we talk about, for example, EVs, there was a great article in The New York Times recently about how Nepal is seeing a significant investment in EV vehicles. Across the country, we’ve seen, for example, in Pakistan, a massive solar boom among residential areas. And so this does affect our, you know, our global standing and our ability to be global leaders. But you know, I think you know, it’s worth emphasizing that others are stepping up. And you know, there’s a role for us here in the US to fight back against this and to ensure that, you know, EPA and our government is, you know, stepping up to the plate.

You know, on the EV side with the vehicles, I think it’s worth important, you know, it’s worth emphasizing, you know, for manufacturers, everyone recognizes that EVs are the future, and so by repealing these greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, we’re not just, you know, introducing more pollution into our communities, but we’re also losing our competitive advantage. You know, by these standards, we are helping to push manufacturers towards the technology of the future, and right now, the administration team seems to be trying to run towards the technology of the past.

Yeah, it’s a short term strategy, and as I believe, Trump is so myopic in almost everything that he does, it doesn’t he doesn’t care to look at what the costs are down the road and and the fact that he’ll destroy American automakers by having them produce gas powered cars, which ultimately nobody’s going to want. I mean, we’re already having to keep super high tariffs on Chinese cars from coming in that are EVs, because our EV industry isn’t, you know, robust enough, which, okay, for now.

If we’re really continuing to grow our EV industry, but if we’re not, we’re depriving citizens of a technology that’s better than than the one we have, which is stupid. Like, how long are we going to do that for that just terrible, you know, policy making and the laws of economics are going to break through it at some point in time, the the one the companies that make the best cars, are going to win. And if we hobble our manufacturers, they’re going to lose so if the repeal of the endangerment finding goes through, what does this mean for the climate movement strategy regarding state action or grassroots organizing litigation?

Patrick, if you want to jump in on that one.

Sure, yeah. I mean, I think we all knew when Trump was elected, like we were gonna have to refocus, redouble efforts, state and local, like we did the first administration. And have, you know, states that were willing to act step up, communities that are willing to act step up.

Thankfully, you know, the IRA, as you mentioned, had really kick started a lot of stuff and created a lot of new manufacturing, kind of this green industrial boom, you know, and solar and wind projects were coming online faster than ever, and that’s going to continue. But certainly, all of these, I tried to kind of think of think of all of these things together, not just the endangerment finding, because it’s all of the actions cumulative that this administration is taking to attack, you know, whether it’s clean energy or, like, standards for dirty fossil energy.

And you know, it’s really, it’s really devastating to to see what’s happening. But I think we do have to double down locally. We need to come up with a strategy federally, also for what we’re going to do when the pendulum swings and there is the opportunity to do things again. Maybe we, you know, the IRA was a great start. You’ve mentioned it a couple of times. We know how important that was in jump starting a lot of things, but we probably. Have to go bigger and bolder, because it wasn’t enough. So we’ve got to kind of be doing all these things at one time while fighting all of these different things that Trump does.

He thrives in the chaos and distraction. So, you know, the climate movement, I think, is really refocusing its efforts right now, thinking, how do we how do we move through the next 12 months? How do we move through the next three years? You know? And that’s, that’s local, state, federal, international action. All of it is going to be necessary if we’re actually going to address this crisis.

Yeah, absolutely. And I guess that was one of the silver linings of the first Trump administration, as they saw a lot of state and local action on the environmental front and on other fronts that were quite positive and, you know, put us in a good trajectory, but there’s going to have to be even more effort, because he seems even more resolved to destroy everything about the environmental movement, because I think he sees it as a political movement, not just an environmental movement.

He sees anything that’s environmental as it is a danger to him, personally and his political power, because he’s so against it, and so he’s just intent on destroying everything in its path. So that leads us to having to act locally, having to act on a state level. So Peter, what do you see? What role can ordinary Americans play here? Are there public comments, state level, law, voting? What are the most effective levers that people should be pulling?

Yeah, I think Matt, all of the above. So we mentioned earlier on this particular action. There is a public comment period that’s open through September 22 all of our organizations have links to how you can submit a public comment. And it’s really, I think, vitally important for the administration to hear from Americans all across the country about how this action impacts them. We’ve been talking a lot about the legal foundations, the scientific foundations.

This is intensely personal for people. And I think you heard that at at the public hearing, where people are sharing stories about the way that climate pollution has harmed and impacted them. And it’s really important, you know, for the this administration to hear that. And in addition to that, I think you are right there. There are opportunities, you know, to engage at the state level, the local level, with legislatures, we have seen states innovating and moving forward with different new additional actions to try to address these harms, and there is just a really vital opportunity to continue and expand that state leadership and a role for All of us in engaging in that advocacy.

Well, Peter, I’d like to give you and the rest of our guests an opportunity before we sign off, to give you know your information and where people can contact you know your organization and volunteer or donate or or comment regarding the endangerment finding and where they can find you on the internet and everything.

Yeah, so I’m happy to start off as we’re at edf.org, on the internet, and we’ve got an endangerment finding landing page on our site there that has links to the public comment opportunities and also background information about the finding its importance and some of the additional information we discussed today.

Thank you so much.

Meredith, to close, what gives you hope that even if this rollback happens, progress on climate action can continue? And also give us your organization info so that people can plug in to what you guys are doing.

Yeah, I will drop our action alert in the chat right now. Folks are welcome to use that template to contact EPA about the endangerment finding. I think what gives me hope in this moment is, you know, some of the folks on this call, the way that the environmental community is really coming together and coordinating, and it’s really been an all hands on deck fight, and that has been inspiring to see. I think what also gives me sort of a mixture of hope as well as some sadness, is that, as Peter mentioned, climate is becoming personal. The sort of the impacts of climate change that used to be this amorphous hypothetical thing that we’ve been talking about for two decades.

You can look right out the door right now and see it. You can look on your utility bill and see the prices going up. And as the impacts of climate change become more and more visible to people’s. Everyday Lives, I think we will see climate change once again, becoming an issue that matters for people and for voters, and start to redirect our country towards addressing climate change.

Absolutely. I think people are seeing it in their insurance bills. I know I have, and I think people all across the country have seen their insurance bills go up because of climate related weather incidents and so Marvin to you, what gives you hope, even if this rollback happens, and also give us the information on your organization, how they can link up with your organization, donate, volunteer.

Definitely. Thank you. And I’ll also put in our action alert into the chat in case folks would like to potentially submit comments that way, and you can edit it and personalize it to you. I would say, you know, what gives me hope is all of the local communities out there that are doing such amazing work. The day after the election, I ended up going to South Texas for an event with a client, and seeing the amount of work that is being done and the amount of passion that folks had for their community, for the Rio Grande River, and also for, you know, reducing air pollution was incredibly inspiring.

And so I take hope from you know, taking action, but taking action in community and being with others who are working to change things really gives me a lot of hope. And I, you know, would describe myself as an eternal optimist. And so even in the face of some big headwinds, I still feel like I still feel optimistic that, you know, over the long arc, it’s still going to bend towards justice.

I thank you for that. And yeah, I think the same for me, that millions of people out there are doing this work across the planet, and that incredible work is being done, and it just keeps getting stronger and stronger, and so it this is almost the death rattle of the move to try to quash this progress, and it’s just not going to be successful. At the end of the day. It just can’t I mean, even if the US were an island, everywhere else is going to be doing this. Everywhere else is going to be working to stop pollution and reduce pollution, because it’s an imperative.

So we’re hiding our heads in the sand if we think somehow this is good policy for America. But Patrick, turn it over to you. What gives you hope? And tell us a bit about where they can contact, where the audience contact you and and link up with the work that you’re doing.

Yeah, I just put our alert also for comments in the chat, like my colleagues, you know Sierra Club. You can go to Sierra club.org find out, you know what, how you can get involved. We’ve got dozens of actions, you know, federally, but Sierra Club’s unique too, that we have 64 chapters around the country. We’re in every single state. We have hundreds of local groups, you know. So find the Local Group.

They’re working on things right in their community, whether it’s, you know, improving air pollution from, you know, local bans on gas mowers or something like that. You know, all sorts of different things. People are doing great stuff in every single every single state, in every single community, and all of that adds up. You know, little wins, I think, turn into big wins. Little emissions reductions turn into big emissions reduction. And, you know, that’s the stuff that I think gives me hope. We’ve made a lot of progress over the last couple of years. We’ve had a lot of highs and some very big lows, but we’ve also seen our solutions work, you know, we did stuff with the IRA, and we got to test those ideas, and they started to work. And we saw that, you know, firsthand. And I think people are waking up to to the impacts.

They’re seeing how much they are being affected. And there is no escape from the impacts of climate change. And people are starting to see exactly what this administration is doing and how they are making every single thing they said they were going to fix worse, making electricity bills go up, making pollution worse, making manufacturing worse. And I think the last thing that gives me hope is really that I know imagining what the world is going to look like when we solve this, you know, and we know that this is the crisis of our time, and we know that the solutions benefit far more than just stopping climate change.

And so that’s what I think keeps a lot of us going, thinking about that every day, and just continuing to work towards that as much as we can.

Well, amen to that. There’s. There is a lot of progress to be had out there, and I try to find it, because otherwise it would some of the negative things would drive me nuts. So, you know, I appreciate all the great work that all of you are doing and and I know internally, I’m, you know, focused on taking the next right step and doing what we can individually, taking small steps, as all of you had said, are so important, I encourage everybody out there in the audience to take one small step out today and to make a comment, as the links are there to make comments. Let your voice be heard that that this endangerment finding should not be repealed in any way, shape or form, and that we need it to protect our health here in the United States.

This is, this is key stuff, and we should be proud that, that we have that type of law to protect protect our citizens, this is we were at the forefront of protecting the environment back in the 70s, and now to just like throw that to the wind is just is ridiculous. But that’s all for today’s special live stream on the EPA endangerment finding. I want to thank Meredith, Peter, Marvin, and Patrick for joining us, and to all of you for tuning in. If you found today’s discussion valuable, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. Hit the notification bell so you don’t miss our next live broadcast.

Share this episode with your friends family network, because these conversations matter. I’m Matt Matern, and thank you for being with us, and we’ll see you next time on a A Climate Change. To learn more about our work at a climate change and how you can help us reach our goal planting 30,000 trees in the Amazon this year, visit aclimatechange.com. don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you like this episode, please share it with a friend. See you next time.