Trump Administration Rescinds Greenhouse Gas Certification
The Trump administration has rolled back the 2009 greenhouse gas crisis certification put in place by the Obama administration, particularly for gases like carbon dioxide. This means, for many, there’s less concern that the carbon dioxide produced by simply breathing will contribute to global warming.
Considering that the world’s 8.3 billion people produce about 2.3 pounds of CO2 each per day, that adds up to approximately 9.5 million tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere daily. It’s a significant amount, to put it mildly.
Those who were anxiously awaiting improved environmental regulations that take into account the needs of both people and the planet can take a breath of relief—perhaps literally.
Lucky for us, plants thrive on the carbon dioxide we exhale, forming part of a natural cycle that sustains our ecosystem’s health. When carbon is sequestered and then released effectively through various processes in the environment, a balance is generally maintained.
But here’s a point of concern: has human activity, especially the increased reliance on fossil fuels since the 1800s, disrupted this balance?
The prevailing scientific consensus suggests there’s a heavy human influence on modern climate change, primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels and the subsequent greenhouse gas emissions. A professional organization claims that these human-driven changes have been “larger and faster than anything known in the last 10,000 years.” The same perspective holds that the detrimental effects underway will likely outweigh any potential benefits.
Yet, there’s another side to this narrative. The very act of burning fossil fuels has been a major factor in lifting many out of poverty. The transition from coal to oil and natural gas, paired with improvements in pollution control technologies, has significantly enhanced the quality of life in societies that efficiently harness energy resources.
It’s argued that the advancements in comfort, productivity, and longevity brought about by fossil fuels represent “greater and faster than any known achievement” over the last 10,000 years.
When you think about harmful impacts, a familiar pattern arises: extreme weather events tend to be blamed on human-caused climate change. So, extreme heat? Human influence. And, of course, that recent extreme cold weather in the U.S.? That’s attributed to it as well.
At least many scientists concur that there are positive aspects to consider too. This includes a notable rise in global vegetation and the advantages warmer climates provide over colder ones for human development and well-being.
An honest evaluation of climate change and its effects on people, infrastructure, and nature must involve weighing both the benefits and the drawbacks. Such nuances are crucial for understanding complex systems.
This recent move by the EPA might come as a relief for the automotive industry. Their conclusion indicated that it “lacks legal authority to impose standards under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act” for greenhouse gas emissions from “new vehicles and new vehicle engines.”
As the EPA noted:
The result of these changes is that engine and vehicle manufacturers will now have flexibility regarding greenhouse gas emissions for all highway engines and vehicles, including those from model years made before this new ruling. This decision does not affect conventional air pollutant regulations, but rather reorients the EPA’s regulatory framework to a more accurate interpretation of the Clean Air Act, which does not allow for the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new cars.
The agency clarified that traditional air pollutants—like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, surface ozone, particulate matter, lead, and carbon monoxide—aren’t impacted by this decision.
So, for those who’ve been waiting for more sensible environmental regulations that accommodate both society and our planet, you can likely breathe a little easier now.
