Jean Chemnick on Washington Journal explains President Trump’s June 2024 EPA repeal of the "endangerment finding" for six greenhouse gases, dismantling the 2009 legal framework (post-Massachusetts v. EPA) that allowed federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. Lawsuits are pending, with Supreme Court challenges expected by 2026, and critics—including Germany and Obama—call it a fossil fuel victory, undermining U.S. Paris Agreement commitments. Callers debate China’s emissions (+300% since 2000), state-level solar barriers, and Hanford nuclear shutdowns as alternatives, while Chemnick notes industry divisions and the looming regulatory void. The move risks stalling climate progress until Congress acts, deepening global leadership gaps. [Automatically generated summary]
Hearing with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi Saturday at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN and online at c-SPAN.org.
C-SPAN, bringing you Democracy Unfiltered.
For President's Day, our America 250 coverage will include a wreath laying ceremony Monday at George Washington's tomb, located at his Mount Vernon estate.
That's live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, also on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-SPAN.org.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Cox.
When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help.
Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans.
Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there.
Cox supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
She's a reporter with Politico's EE News, here to talk about the president's announcement yesterday of repealing climate pollution regulations and the headline from EE News: EPA repeals endangerment finding.
So what does that mean, Gene Chemnick, and why is that important?
unidentified
So this is more than just a rule.
It's sort of the condition for all climate change rules.
Under the Clean Air Act, you have to decide that pollution is harmful before you regulate it.
So what they did is pull that decision, which was made back in the Obama administration, and that has allowed the agency to regulate cars and power plants and oil and gas development and require reporting.
And, you know, it could have, you know, been used for other sectors in the future.
And they're basically rolling it back and saying that for the purposes of regulation, the six greenhouse gases are not pollution.
If the courts were to uphold it, and the next two years will settle that, but this would be the end of climate regulation until Congress acted, whenever that would be.
You know, there will be a whole bunch of challenges about the process that led to this, about, you know, the substance of the rule, and it'll probably eventually make it all the way up to the Supreme Court who will make the final decision.
We want to get our viewers to join us in this conversation about the Trump announcement yesterday to revoke the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases.
Here's how you can join the conversation this morning.
Democrats dial Republicans dial in at 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
And a reminder, you can text us as well, include your first name, city, and state, at 202-748-8003.
Let's listen to the president yesterday when he was asked about concerns that the rollback will have on public health.
President Trump, when asked about health concerns over the rollback, Gene Shemnik, I want to show you and viewers and have you respond to the former president, Barack Obama, who put this in place on X saying today the Trump administration repealed the endangerment finding, the ruling that served as the basis for limits on tailpipe emissions and power plant rules.
Without it, we'll be less safe, less healthy, and less able to fight climate change.
Also, the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.
Take that last point from the former president.
Was the White House lobbied by the fossil fuel industry for this?
unidentified
You know, the fossil fuel industry is actually divided on this.
You know, not all everyone in the oil and gas industry thinks this is a great idea for a couple reasons.
One, they're trying to access markets abroad that still care about climate change, and this could make it harder for them to do that.
They could face more barriers going into Europe, for example.
You know, and second, you know, there's a reputational hit if people know that they're sort of emitting without any limitation.
So there are some companies that wanted this, there are companies that didn't.
The big trade groups did say they did not want this rollback or at least had some qualms about it.
But I mean, it's really driven more by ideology than by business.
This is something that some of his supporters really cared about.
Hey, if I could make a comment and then ask Gene a question, and my comment is going to be just to everybody out there that's in journalism: how the conversation about government shutdown has made the Democrats responsible for it.
And if you go back to the shutdown in the first Trump occupation, Trump tried to, from the White House, tried to say, hey, okay, enough of the shutdown.
All right, Brian, Brian, we've moved on to the EPA and the announcement by the President.
Do you have a question or comment about that?
unidentified
I'm sorry.
I thought I got a free comment there.
But my question in regards to the environment is during the Bush-Cheney administration, they decided that the West Coast versus the East Coast on energy costs, it was unfair for people out here where I'm at.
We are on hydropower and we have inexpensive electricity.
And so Bush and Cheney decided that we should have rates that the East Coast people have for more expensive electricity and how that was put into action.
And it has never went back to say, hey, if you want to run nuclear or coal, you've got to pay more dough for the cleanup.
But if you're running turbines off of a flow of a current of a river, then you're good to go.
There's no disaster other than the environmental disaster of the salmon migration is huge.
I'm calling about the fact that Trump told oil executives when he met with them in Mar-a-Lago April 2024 that it would be a great deal if they raised $1 billion for his campaign.
In exchange, he would get rid of the Biden-era regulations and make sure no other regulations went into effect.
So in effect, he was saying he would give them a deal.
I mean, fossil fuels companies do want rollbacks of Biden-era rules universally.
They want, you know, changes to a lot of those rules.
The question with this one, what distinguishes the rule yesterday is that it's sort of the rule to end all rules.
It's the absence of regulation.
And what some companies would prefer is rules that they say are manageable.
They're definitely weaker than the Biden-era rules by a large margin, but that there would be some kind of a placeholder rule in place for things like energy development.
Now, they may still try to find a way to have an energy development, oil and gas, methane rule.
It'll be interesting to see how they do that.
But they want things like that for the reasons that I mentioned earlier.
It actually benefits a lot of companies, not all of them, to have something like that in place.
Andy in Brooklyn Independent, welcome to the conversation.
Your question or comment?
unidentified
Thank you, Pussy San.
Thank you for the guests today.
My comment is about the structuring of the wealth class system in America created by oil investors and how energy keeps financial banking and people enslaved to the system that we live in.
Let's talk about monopolies in America.
Utility companies are monopolies.
They're regulated monopolies, but they're monopolies.
They're in cahoots with the oil companies and they're price gouging.
I cannot believe that I'm turning off everything I have and I'm still paying over $600 almost on mortgage payment on electricity, sometimes twice as much.
We need to regulate or get rid of these monopolies and make energy structures based on renewables and things that are not based on oil that makes plastics and destroy our economies.
Gene Chemnick, do you have any thoughts on what you heard there from the caller?
unidentified
I mean, I can't speak to a lot of it.
The one thing I would say is that there are a lot of states that put up barriers to things like community solar, structural barriers, policy barriers.
And in the Biden administration, at least, there was some thinking about that.
And maybe there still is thinking in certain states, but that does exist.
There are policies in place in a lot of places that make it impossible for communities to come together and co-own a solar project, even if it would offset some of the power costs.
I don't think that anything the United States is doing or will do will make a difference until China and India make significant changes to what they do.
Each of those countries has approximately 1.4 billion people.
They occupy, I mean, they represent about 35% of the world's population.
In the same period of time since the year 2000, the United States has reduced the CO2 emissions by about 17%.
China's gone up 300%.
India's gone up 250%.
China emits about, what, 12 kilotons per year?
India about 3 kilotons per year.
If the United States were to achieve net zero by the year 2050, all China would have to do is go up 40% to overcome that reduction.
You know, I can't fact check all of those numbers right now.
I don't cover China that closely.
I have colleagues who do.
What I would say is that the U.S. economy was already very developed in that timeframe, whereas China and India are still developing.
So it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison.
And I don't think there are any estimates that China is going to go up 40%.
And there are actually estimates that they've peaked their emissions.
They've made that commitment by 2030.
And so, you know, There are some problems with that analysis.
It is definitely true that China and India are huge emitters, and I'm not here to say that they're necessarily doing what they would need to do to contain emissions either.
But it is not true that the entire U.S. economy is an important contributor to climate change.
Well, I kind of got a question, I guess, and a comment, but I'm kind of curious about job burning.
If you watch, if you type in and do a search on John Brennan with the CIA and you do a search about job burning and chemtrails, geoengineering, weather warfare.
What's next from the administration after this announcement?
unidentified
So litigation is the main thing that happens with this rule.
You know, it'll go to the district court.
It will see what happens there.
And then, like I said, probably eventually the Supreme Court will take it up and will decide whether this stands.
If it does, then for the most part, greenhouse gases will not be regulated at the federal level unless Congress eventually passes a climate law or an amendment.
This could spur more action at the state level.
It could lead to a lot of litigation against high-emitting facilities.
And, you know, as far as other rules go, I mean, there's just going to have to be rule makings to see what happens with power plants and oil and gas development and all of these other things.
But this is definitely the first step towards getting rid of all of those.
The president announcing yesterday a repeal of climate pollution regulations put in place during the Obama administration.
We want your questions or comments about the announcement.
You can join us if you're a Republican at 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
Gene Chemnick, do you expect that the White House, while there is litigation going on, makes some moves by executive order?
And if so, what are they?
unidentified
Well, I think they're trying to contain what states do to regulate greenhouse gases.
That will be interesting to watch.
There was an executive order last year to look at state policies.
That will be another area where there's a lot of litigation.
Because when you get rid of regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, there is an argument that that frees states to regulate vehicles at the state level.
So, in theory, and this has not been litigated, we'll see what happens in the courts.
But in theory, you could have an Idaho rule for vehicle emissions and a California one.
And you could have a patchwork of state policies potentially governing these emissions because there isn't a federal law anymore to preempt them.
This is all going to be litigated.
It's not clear that that's how it would work.
So, that's a problem.
And then this could also spur states to do more to regulate stationary sources like power plants and factories and whatnot.
Jean Chemnick, well, I would say that yesterday's decision is probably going to mean that there's more variety between states on climate regulation than there otherwise would have been because it's going to get rid of a federal floor for things like vehicles, power plants, etc.
So, it makes it more likely that it'll kind of be state by state or groups of states working together to deal with emissions, and that many states will not have any policies in place at all, potentially.
Washington Journal, did that guy just say that if we put a bigger hole, the ozone will be ahead of the game?
Holy cow.
I used to use antiperspirant in a canned air saw.
Now I think we're all using stick deodorant, right?
Not spray cans to put our antiperspirant on.
But Gene, I got a question.
We had an article done by the local print-on-paper newspaper in Spokane, Washington.
The Uplander did an article by a nuclear, an ambassador for nuclear energy.
He retired from the nuclear industry.
And his article stated that if they shut down the nuclear whoops program at Hanford, Washington, in six months, the rate payers from the local utility company Avista would have reduced electrical rates because we wouldn't be supplementing an obsolete nuclear power facility at Hanford,
which contributes zero to the electrical grid and has less than 80 workers there that could be redistributed through the Westinghouse operation at the Hanford facility.
Shutting Down Hanford's Obsolete Nuclear Program00:00:45
unidentified
And we would all get cheaper electrical rates by not supplementing a defunct nuclear program at Hanford, Washington.
You can finish watching this online at c-span.org.
We take you live now to the Munich Security Conference, where French President Emmanuel Macron is speaking.
You're watching C-SPAN.
We'll take another 30 seconds.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's my great pleasure before this day of intense discussion concludes to welcome a very special guest of honor here before dinner time starts.