- The EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, is reconsidering the controversial ruling that classified CO? as a "dangerous pollutant," which has been the basis for sweeping climate regulations. Repealing it could roll back costly mandates and restore U.S. energy independence.
- Critics argue the EPA relied on outdated models, ignored dissenting scientific opinions and bypassed proper peer review. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) revealed the agency violated federal guidelines in its decision-making process.
- Recent Supreme Court rulings (West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright v. Raimondo) have weakened the EF’s legitimacy, limiting agencies' power to impose major regulations without explicit congressional approval.
- Aggressive green policies have led to soaring energy costs (e.g., in Europe), blackouts (e.g., California and Texas) and job losses, while countries like China and India continue expanding fossil fuel use, negating U.S. climate efforts.
- Revoking the EF could end burdensome regulations, halt Biden-era EV mandates and unleash U.S. oil, gas and coal production, marking a turning point for affordable, reliable energy and economic growth.
For over a decade, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF) has served as the legal foundation for sweeping climate regulations, stifling American energy production and driving up costs for families and businesses. Now, under the leadership of Administrator Lee Zeldin, the agency is reexamining this controversial ruling—potentially dismantling the regulatory stranglehold on fossil fuels and restoring common sense to environmental policy.
If repealed, the EF could roll back costly mandates on power plants, vehicles and household appliances while reasserting America’s energy independence.
Flawed science behind the Endangerment Finding
The EF, issued under the Obama administration, declared carbon dioxide (CO?) — a natural byproduct of human respiration, plant growth and industrial progress — a "dangerous pollutant." This classification granted the EPA unprecedented authority to regulate emissions across nearly every sector of the economy.
But as energy policy expert Paul Driessen notes, the EPA’s decision was built on shaky ground: "The process EPA used in rendering its predetermined finding demonstrates how little actual science played a role."
The agency relied on outdated computer models and dismissed dissenting scientific voices, including one of its own experts who was reportedly told his findings "do not help the legal or policy case for this decision." The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) later exposed how the EPA violated federal guidelines by bypassing proper peer review and ignoring contradictory evidence.
Legal precedents undermine the EF’s legitimacy
Recent Supreme Court rulings have further weakened the EF’s legal standing. In West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the Court ruled that agencies cannot unilaterally impose regulations of "vast economic and political significance" without explicit congressional approval. The EF, which effectively handed the EPA control over America’s energy sector, clearly fits that description.
Then, in Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the Court overturned the Chevron doctrine, stripping bureaucrats of their power to interpret ambiguous laws in ways that expand their regulatory reach. As Driessen argues: "These two decisions mean the EPA had no authority to convert plant-fertilizing, life-giving carbon dioxide into a dangerous, health-threatening pollutant."
Real-world consequences of climate alarmism
While the Biden administration pushed aggressive green energy mandates, the disastrous results are undeniable:
- Soaring energy costs in Europe (where renewables reliance led to electricity prices 3-4 times higher than in the U.S.).
- Blackouts in California and Texas due to unreliable wind and solar power.
- Job losses in energy-intensive industries forced overseas by costly regulations.
Meanwhile, nations like China and India continue expanding fossil fuel use, rendering U.S. climate sacrifices meaningless. As Driessen points out: "Even eliminating coal, oil, gas and petrochemical use in the United States would have no effect on global GHG emissions."
Turning point for energy freedom?
With Greenpeace facing a $667 million judgment for its role in eco-terrorism and the scientific consensus on climate alarmism crumbling, the political winds are shifting. Administrator Zeldin’s review of the EF could mark a pivotal moment in restoring affordable, reliable energy — while rejecting the radical green agenda that has harmed working-class Americans.
If the EPA revokes the EF, it could:
? End burdensome regulations on power plants and refineries.
? Halt Biden-era electric vehicle mandates that drive up car prices.
? Restore U.S. energy dominance by unleashing oil, gas and coal production.
The dawn of a new energy era?
As the EPA reconsiders this Obama-era overreach, one thing is clear: The era of energy freedom may finally be dawning. By dismantling the flawed Endangerment Finding, the U.S. can reject costly climate alarmism and embrace a future of abundant, affordable energy — fueling economic growth and national security for decades to come.
The question now is whether the Biden administration and environmental activists will accept scientific and legal reality — or continue pushing policies that hurt American families while benefiting foreign adversaries. The answer could determine the fate of U.S. energy independence.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.