In February of 2026, the Trump administration announced that they will be revoking the scientific finding that greenhouse gases cause human harm as well as environmental harm. The scientific claim that greenhouse gases cause harm had been accepted for many years and had support from both the Democrat and Republican parties. Richard Nixon, for example, signed the Clean Air Act in 1970 which authorized federal regulations on emissions from industry and transportation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used these findings to regulate pollutants such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane and emit them in a conservative way. It was also intended to hold fossil fuel companies accountable and regulate emission levels for human impact. But this new announcement is paving the way for a major increase in fossil fuel company success and a major increase in emissions.
This announcement from the Trump administration removes all regulatory practices of the EPA on greenhouse gas emissions which allows fossil fuel companies to emit freely. Companies will not have to disclose which pollutants they are emitting either, which raises concerns for human impacts. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to increase by 10% over the next 30 years.
The Trump administration is challenging the Government’s authority to manage climate change. This announcement is extremely damaging to American people as well as our environment. It puts people at risk for health complications and environmental damage. The lack of regulation also puts our world at risk for higher global temperatures, which could cause intense climate impacts. The removal of regulatory practices from the EPA also demonstrates a lack of concerns and care for the impacts of pollution. President Trump is demonstrating the concept of discursive delay, which is a term that describes language used to halt climate change action. The removal of scientific knowledge that greenhouse gas emissions are harmful demonstrates this administration's recasting of climate science as “debated” not factual, scientifically proven information. President Trump has started the narrative that greenhouse gasses may not be harmful and that regulation is unnecessary. All these claims are not based on science or research, but in fallacies that continue his personal narrative. Delaying climate action allows for fossil fuel companies to become wealthier and it allows for continued exploitation of the environment and human health risks.
Your blog post was very informative and interesting. It is important that people know his plans on regulations for greenhouse gases since it is harming our planet. Great job!
ReplyDeleteIt's infuriating to know that our President can simply decide a proven, accepted scientific fact just isn't true anymore. I appreciate your focus on the EPA. I was speaking to someone who attended a recent meeting or event of theirs and he mentioned some of what you wrote on as well.
ReplyDeleteIt’s worrying how removing EPA authority lets fossil‑fuel companies pollute without limits, especially when we already know the health and climate risks. Your point about discursive delay makes it clear this isn’t just political talk it slows real action while companies profit. This post shows exactly why these regulations matter.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cass's comment about our president being able to decide that a prove fact isn't true anymore. He doesn't even have an education surrounding the climate or environment, which could be part of the issue. The administration is ignoring all the climate change-related disasters we've already experienced, and isn't considering how this affects marginalized communities.
ReplyDeleteIt's sickening that the government is suddenly able to decide what the truth is just because it's more convenient for big businesses. It's especially worrying that companies don't have to disclose what kind of pollutants they're emitting, allowing them to lie about the severity. That kind of disinformation is such an obvious propaganda technique, and we need to be holding them to more scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteYou do a good job blending historical context, scientific explanation, and policy critique into a very smart piece of writing. Good job!
ReplyDeleteInsane how the administration blatantly ignores such hard, proven facts, with clear data to back it up. Yet they create illegitimate narratives to push their agenda. Great job laying it all out and making it quick and easy to understand the magnitude of this situation.
ReplyDeleteIt's crazy how the simple act of someone in power saying something doesn't exist somehow makes that thing not exist.
ReplyDeleteIt's crazy that he can get just take away this information and all of a sudden it's set environmental regulations back decades. No one should have the power to omit the fact of proven and well-researched science.
ReplyDeleteI made my post on some of the EPA's deregulatory acts as well. I mentioned that the erasing of the endangerment finding is the single most harmful move that has been made during this administration. What i found most absurd was the way that Trump, Zeldin, and the conservative press spoke about the finding. The screenshot of the Whitehouse article headline is a perfect example. To consider this deregulation a "relief" is not only flat out ridiculous but very dangerous to anyone reading the article that may not be educated about environmental law. A title could be considered the most influential part of a piece of writing and could very easily cause people to get the wrong idea, before they've even read the article.
ReplyDeleteYour post does a really strong job explaining what could happen if greenhouse gas regulation is rolled back. Your writing also does a good job showing why scientific agreement on climate change is important.
ReplyDeleteThe reclassification of climate science as "debated" rather than "factual" is a textbook example of how controlling the language of "truth" can be used to justify systemic harm. By revoking these scientific findings, the administration isn't just changing a policy; they are attempting to overwrite the intuition of every person who has directly felt the impacts of a heatwave or a wildfire.
ReplyDelete