SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " endangerment " 22 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
Why rejecting the endangerment finding also rejects climate science
Climate denial as US policy is ‘chilling,’ scientists say, but there’s still more that science can do
The Trump EPA’s Endangerment Finding Repeal: Wrong on Statute, Deceptive on Science, Reckless on Impacts
On February 12, the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its repeal of the Endangerment Finding, which establishes EPA’s statutory obligation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Alongside, EPA also repealed the associated vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards. This action
Repeal of EPA 'endangerment finding' endangers human health
Climate change is happening, it is human-caused and it is damaging human health, two doctors write.
Trump drops key US climate rule, swaps health for cheap cars
The US has revoked what's known as the endangerment finding, a scientific finding central to US climate actions, to boost cheaper, gas-powered cars. Experts say the shift comes at a fragile point for the warming planet.
Dyersburg gunfire investigation leads to drug arrest at South Main Avenue business
Dyersburg police arrested a local businessman on felony reckless endangerment and drug charges following an investigation into a Sept. 24 shooting involving two vehicles.
U.S. EPA repeals landmark finding that underpins public health and climate regulations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its unlawful repeal of the endangerment finding.
EPA to repeal its own conclusion that greenhouse gases warm the planet and threaten health
Known as the endangerment finding, the decision is the legal framework that allows the EPA to regulate emissions. Its reversal could upend many climate change policies.
Trump sidelines climate contrarians in science rollback
The president has mocked global warming as a “hoax,” but his administration avoided testing that claim in court as it targeted the endangerment finding.
Healthcare Professionals, Scientists and Children Sue the EPA for Backtracking on Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Widely anticipated legal challenges question the agency’s reversal of the 2009 endangerment finding. The decision is “reckless, illogical and ignores the vast majority of public comments,” plaintiffs say.
Repeal of EPA’s endangerment finding won’t change the realities of chronic disease
We can expect chronic disease rates to worsen as greenhouse gas emissions trend upward and contribute to more frequent and intense climate impacts like extreme heat and wildfires.
Trump says climate change doesn’t endanger public health – evidence shows it does, from extreme heat to mosquito-borne illnesses
Climate change is making people sicker and more vulnerable to disease. Erasing the federal endangerment finding increases the risk.
Trump’s EPA Says Climate Change Doesn’t Risk Public Health
By Jonathan Levy, Howard Frumkin, Jonathan Patz, Vijay Limaye The Trump administration took a major step in its efforts to unravel America’s climate policies on Feb. 12, 2026, when it moved to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding – a formal determination that six greenhouse gases that drive climate ...
Judge temporarily blocks Trump officials from pulling health grants to Illinois, other Democrat-led states
Trump’s EPA Says Climate Change Doesn’t Risk Public Health
By Jonathan Levy, Howard Frumkin, Jonathan Patz, Vijay Limaye The Trump administration took a major step in its efforts to unravel America’s climate policies on Feb. 12, 2026, when it moved to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding – a formal determination that six greenhouse gases that drive climate ...
Merchants of Doubt and the attacks on Extreme Event Attribution science
Last week, I attended a meeting at Columbia University on attribution science and climate law, hosted by the Sabin Center. It was a fantastic event, bringing together scientists and legal experts working at the intersection of extreme event attribution and climate law. Subscribe For those unfamiliar with it, extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the contribution of climate change to an extreme event. For example, several groups analyzed the impact of climate change on Hurricane Harvey’s enormous rainfall totals over Houston, Texas and they found that climate change increased rainfall by 15 to 38%. One thing that came up again and again was how terrified fossil-fuel interests are of extreme event attribution science. They are acutely aware that this research could land them in court. And losing those cases would leave them legally liable for billions of dollars in climate damages. Because the legal stakes are so high, the blowback has turned ugly. I spoke with several scientists at the meeting who are facing ongoing harassment over their work. This blowback is a coordinated campaign to make the entire field look suspect. The goal is to create the impression that attribution science is too uncertain, too political, or too conflicted to be useful in court or in public policy. The strategy is not based on actual science or evidence of misconduct, but on the generation of doubt. The new Merchants of Doubt We’ve seen this before. In fact, not that long ago: We only have to go back a year to the Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group (CWG) report to see an example of using doubt as the tool to push back against well-established science. This strategy is laid out in an email from a member of the CWG, Dr. Roy Spencer, that was released during litigation over the Climate Working Group process. The key quote is: About all I can hope is that what we write will provide sufficient “reasonable scientific doubt” regarding the science claims in the 2009 TSD [technical support document], based upon almost 2 decades of new science, to call into question the original reasoning for the EPA Administrator’s decision that CO2 presents a threat to human health and welfare. This statement is strong evidence that at least some members of the committee were working to support a particular policy outcome: revoking the Endangerment Finding. The email also explains how they planned to do it: by attempting to generate “reasonable doubt”. This is going to be hard, Spencer implies. Despite falsely claiming that “2 decades of new science” weakens the case, Spencer explicitly acknowledges that the actual peer-reviewed science of climate change overwhelmingly rejects his position: But if the science argument is decided upon by a vote, or by the number of published citations, we lose the science argument. We can go back even further: This CWG email shares unmistakable DNA with the infamous 1969 tobacco memo that declared: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” The tobacco memo also acknowledges the limit of this strategy: Like the CWG, they knew the science was not on their side. Share The new new Merchants of Doubt The people attacking the IPCC chapter on extreme event attribution are the newest iteration of the Merchants of Doubt. Their goal, like all Merchants before them, is to introduce doubt into the process. Because the report is not even out yet, they cannot attack its conclusions. So they are attacking the authors instead. Here is a press release from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee: In the letter, the Chairmen express concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving members of the Attribution Committee, stating that “publicly available information suggests a troubling pattern” in which committee members are affiliated with nonprofits that support climate accountability lawsuits, “raising the appearance of impropriety and member bias.” To be clear, this is just innuendo. There is no actual evidence of bias. And given the robust process that these reports go through, including multiple lines of peer review, it seems very unlikely that significant bias can survive into the report. When the report comes out, critics will have the opportunity to make legitimate criticisms of the report — if any exist. If none do, however, they’ll still make criticisms, but they’ll be bogus, simply designed to generate doubt. We’ll see. A note to the press: Fix your frame To any journalists reading this: The public debate over extreme event attribution science is not going away. The science is simply too dangerous to fossil-fuel interests for them to stop fighting it. You very well might be assigned to write an article about this area of research in the future. When you do, do not automatically adopt the framing that climate misinformers want you to use. They want you to frame the story around questions like: Are climate scientists trying to put their thumb on the scale to achieve a predetermined, politically motivated result? Are climate scientists improperly letting their politics invade the science of the IPCC? That frame is a trap. Instead, you need to view this through the historical lens of the Merchants of Doubt. How does the ecosystem of doubt operate? Who funds it? What methods do they use to misrepresent science and slime researchers? What scientific results are they trying to keep people from understanding are legitimate? Ultimately, you instead need to focus your article on the generation of doubt as a way to maintain the fossil fuel industry’s social and legal license to keep burning oil, gas, and coal. If you treat the misinformers’ frame as a legitimate, good-faith scientific critique, you are helping them produce doubt. Don’t do it. Don’t be a Merchant of Doubt. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe other stuff The Staying Curious Substack has an interesting post about the different flavors of climate sensitivity. This is crucial information if you want to understand how scientists think about how much warming the Earth will experience. I’d be grateful if you could hit the like button ❤️ below! It helps more people discover these ideas and lets me know what’s connecting with readers.
Expert Q&A: Why climate health research matters more than ever under new federal stance
UC Berkeley’s Dr. David J. X. González on what the recent reversal of the “Endangerment Finding” means for public health.
Health and Climate Consequences of EPA’s Endangerment Finding Repeal ‘Cannot Be Overstated’
In short: the agency will no longer be able to regulate carbon pollution or greenhouse gases—though a couple of scenarios might prevent President Trump from getting his way.
Trump administration eliminates greenhouse gas regulations : The NPR Politics Podcast
The Trump administration has rescinded the Environmental Protection Agency’s “endangerment finding,” the scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions harm the public. We discuss what’s behind the change and what it could mean for Americans.This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, climate correspondent Jeff Brady, and political correspondent Ashley Lopez.This podcast was produced by Bria Suggs and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
Rejecting science, Trump reverses conclusion that climate change is harming Americans
The 2009 endangerment finding affirms that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and welfare. Its repeal marks one of the most significant deregulatory actions in U.S. history.
Why the endangerment finding mattered so much for health and the climate | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Harvard Chan School's Mary Rice discusses the potential health impacts of the Trump administration's decision to scrap the endangerment finding.
The 3 Big Unknowns About the EPA’s Biggest Climate Science Rollback Ever
What to watch for when the agency releases its final decision on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding.