Lawmakers: “As the Administrator of the EPA, you are tasked with making decisions grounded in science, law, and the best interests of the American people.”
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, joined 12 Democratic colleagues to demand answers from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin on his plans to rollback decades of scientific findings on climate change and greenhouse gasses.
In a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the senators expressed deep concern over his recent recommendation to reconsider the EPA’s longstanding scientific finding that greenhouse gases — such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide — endanger public health and welfare. This finding has been the cornerstone of the United States’ legal and regulatory framework for addressing climate change under the Clean Air Act.
“It is difficult to understand how the nation’s lead official responsible for protecting human health and the environment could seriously entertain the idea of undoing a scientific finding that has been repeatedly upheld in court, reinforced by thousands of studies and decades of research, and is supported by the vast majority of the scientific community,” the senators wrote.
“Given the overwhelming scientific consensus and the increasingly dangerous and costly wildfires, droughts, and extreme storms that the American people are experiencing, we call upon you to reconsider any scientifically indefensible move to overturn this finding,” the senators continued. “As the Administrator of the EPA, you are tasked with making decisions grounded in science, law, and the best interests of the American people.”
In their letter, the senators demanded that EPA Administrator Zeldin answer the following questions:
1. What new scientific evidence has the EPA found that justifies the reversal of the endangerment finding?
2. What new evidence does the EPA have that suggests reversing the endangerment finding would better protect the health and welfare of Americans and the environment, as is the EPA’s mission?
3. How does the EPA plan to address the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court, particularly when courts have repeatedly upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases based on the endangerment finding?
4. Given that the endangerment finding has been repeatedly challenged by industry groups, fossil fuel companies, and climate change deniers over the years, do you believe that political or economic pressure is influencing your decision to revisit the finding, rather than an objective evaluation of the scientific facts?
5. How do you plan to ensure that the EPA’s decision-making process remains rooted in scientific integrity?
The senators concluded by underscoring that scientific findings should never be tainted by political interference and urging the EPA Administrator to, “reaffirm the EPA’s commitment to protecting public health and the environment from all human-driven threats, including the growing threat of the climate crisis.”
The letter is led by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Alongside Heinrich, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
The text of the letter is here and below:
Administrator Zeldin:
We write to you today deeply alarmed by your recent recommendation to reconsider the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, which determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide endanger public health and welfare. As you know, this finding has been the cornerstone of the United States’ legal and regulatory framework for addressing climate change under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
It is difficult to understand how the nation’s lead official responsible for protecting human health and the environment could seriously entertain the idea of undoing a scientific finding that has been repeatedly upheld in court, reinforced by thousands of studies and decades of research, and is supported by the vast majority of the scientific community. Given the overwhelming scientific consensus and the increasingly dangerous and costly wildfires, droughts, and extreme storms that the American people are experiencing, we call upon you to reconsider any scientifically indefensible move to overturn this finding.
As the Administrator of the EPA, you are tasked with making decisions grounded in science, law, and the best interests of the American people. In light of these facts, we demand answers to the following questions regarding your reconsideration of the endangerment finding by March 15, 2025, before any further steps are taken to undo this foundational finding without complete transparency and undeniable scientific support:
1. What new scientific evidence has the EPA found that justifies the reversal of the endangerment finding?
2. What new evidence does the EPA have that suggests reversing the endangerment finding would better protect the health and welfare of Americans and the environment, as is the EPA’s mission?
3. How does the EPA plan to address the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court, particularly when courts have repeatedly upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases based on the endangerment finding?
4. Given that the endangerment finding has been repeatedly challenged by industry groups, fossil fuel companies, and climate change deniers over the years, do you believe that political or economic pressure is influencing your decision to revisit the finding, rather than an objective evaluation of the scientific facts?
5. How do you plan to ensure that the EPA’s decision-making process remains rooted in scientific integrity?
Scientific findings should never be tainted by political interference. Using political means to hinder, distort, or improperly steer the work of federal scientists or the communication of scientific facts undermines the public trust of key institutions and actively threatens the welfare of the nation. The scientific evidence in support of the endangerment finding is clear, compelling, and continues to grow stronger. Reversing this finding would be reckless and irrational. As such, we urge you to seriously reconsider any efforts to revisit, reverse, or rescind the endangerment finding, and instead reaffirm the EPA’s commitment to protecting public health and the environment from all human-driven threats, including the growing threat of the climate crisis.
We look forward to your response and hope that you will prioritize scientific integrity in your decision-making.
Sincerely,
###