Executive effort to rescind EPA’s 2009 GHG endangerment finding, removing the Clean Air Act basis for regulating carbon emissions and backed by alternative agency reviews.
— Determines the scope of federal climate authority, triggers major litigation, and sets precedent for using intra-executive science and legal tactics to overturn foundational regulatory findings.
Roger Pielke Jr.
2025.08.16
92% relevant
The article centers on EPA’s proposal to reconsider the 2009 greenhouse-gas endangerment finding and argues the agency misinterprets Ritchie’s work to support that move, directly engaging the legal basis for federal carbon regulation.
Roger Pielke Jr.
2025.08.12
100% relevant
The article analyzes EPA’s proposed rescission and the DOE Climate Working Group report’s role, assessing scientific claims and noting EPA’s legal framing.
Roger Pielke Jr.
2025.08.05
90% relevant
CarbonBrief’s email (quoted by Pielke) states the DOE CWG report is intended to justify revoking EPA’s endangerment finding; Pielke then evaluates how his cited work is used, directly engaging with the evidentiary basis that could underpin such a rollback.
Roger Pielke Jr.
2025.08.03
78% relevant
The author argues the 2009 EPA endangerment finding should remain but be updated because emissions and forcing projections have moderated; this directly engages the same legal keystone that rollback efforts target and shows how revised scientific assessments could narrow or reshape regulatory scope without rescission.
Roger Pielke Jr.
2025.07.30
95% relevant
The article reports that DOE’s critical climate assessment was released in tandem with the Trump Administration’s announcement to reconsider EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, providing scientific and political justification to weaken or rescind the legal basis for federal GHG regulation.
Roger Pielke Jr.
2025.07.23
95% relevant
The piece details the Trump administration’s impending rule to revisit EPA’s 2009 GHG endangerment finding and explains the legal standards (Clean Air Act’s 'shall' language, 'may reasonably be anticipated' threshold, and precedential weight) that make reversal difficult—precisely the mechanisms at stake in an effort to undo the finding.