Wildfires, floods, disease and mortality. In December 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced findings on many greenhouse gasses, revealing their detrimental effects not only on the earth, but on the health of people around the world. The gasses found, CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6, are all long-lived, staying a part of our atmosphere for generations. 97% of publishing climate scientists believe that human activity and greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change. This finding became the foundation for environmental protection legislation and regulations. Restrictions on factories and car manufacturers increased, requiring them to limit the chemicals they and their products use and dispel. Many, however, believe such regulations infringe on citizens’ freedom and ability to choose for themselves.That any customer should be able to decide whether environmental concerns should dictate the technology and performance of their vehicle. Requirements placed on car manufacturers inflate prices, charging many consumers for an issue they don’t believe or support. These concerns lead to the February 12, 2026, decision to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding.
“Science shouldn’t be something political… it should always be,something in mind, no matter what political party you are in,” stated Sophie Hu, president of the Biology Club, when asked how scientific consensus should be used to create policy and law. In recent years, appointments to regulatory agencies like the EPA have depended as much on the political as the scientific positions of those in charge. The argument against regulation rejects the belief that human activity contributes to climate change. “I think we should do everything we can that’s economically feasible to … reverse the climate change that is happening right now.” Economic feasibility may be complicated to assess, as the actual costs of climate change may be difficult to predict.
“We’ve been creating new technologies. If we look at electric cars, and we look at solar panels and things like that, new technology has been created. Jobs have been created for those fields, and so the more that we do, the better that will be, and it will address both the economic concerns and the environmental concerns,” explained NDB chemistry teacher Dr. Haithcox. Critics might complain that government interference and regulation that favors one technology over another in the free market would be a version of State Capitalism, where the government exerts too much influence over private companies. When questioned as to the possible effects this repeal could have, she responded, “I think it will make things worse overall…there will be less regulation about the greenhouse gasses that are being released, and we will see more problems in our climate and in our weather events.”
On Monday, March 9th, the EPA appointed Ophthalmologist Brian Joondeph as a new member of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory committee. This committee is charged with deciding at what levels certain chemicals become dangerous. By law, one member of the board must be a physician. However, in the past, most have studied the effects of pollution on health, and have released peer reviewed papers on the environment. Dr. Joondeh has not. Many have criticized this decision, deeming an eye doctor with no background in environmental science ill-fit to advise the EPA. In addition to Ophthalmology, he writes political opinion pieces praising Donald Trump for his actions and policies as president. The doctor was recommended by the CO2 Coalition, a group funded by the energy industry.
With the already deadly and destructive effects of climate change, the decision to repeal the foundation of the regulations and protections could destroy the earth. The endangerment finding was a crucial step in empowering legislative restriction on pollution, and gave the EPA legal authority to enforce regulations. This decision will affect not only those of the EPA who made it, but the lives of individuals of every country around the world for generations to come. As Sophie Hu said, the science someone chooses to follow and act upon should not be based on their political opinions or standing. The policy one chooses to support should be based on science. It exists no matter what politician one supports and should be the foundation of any decision regarding the environment. Dr. Haithcox explained that one does not have to choose between economic or environmental security when it is possible to create jobs and inventions that aid both.
Sources:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, epa.gov
The New York Times, nytimes.com
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), nasa.gov
