Trump’s EPA Declares It’s “Futile” to Fight Climate Change

This blog was coauthored by Mark Drajem, federal media & public affairs director, NRDC.

As the nation copes with record heat and drought and unprecedented wildfires, the Trump administration provided what may be the most cynical excuse to abandon efforts to address the changing climate: It’s all just futile.  

Earlier this spring, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the scientific determination that climate-changing pollution endangers our health and well-being—and with that, the standards to curb emissions from cars and trucks, the nation’s biggest emitters.  

Buried deep in the EPA’s justification for tossing out its endangerment finding was its newfound theory that curbing emissions from the nation’s largest source would have no impact on global temperatures or sea level rise. It would—in a word the EPA repeats 29 times in its rulemaking—be “futile.”  

Keeping the standards “would be unreasonable given their futility,” the EPA repeated time and time again.   

The Trump EPA’s decision to just let ’er rip on climate pollution comes as communities across the United States are suffering record-breaking heat and drought this spring. This was the country’s hottest March on record, with cities and towns across Arizona already hitting 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Farmers are dealing with unprecedented drought from the West to Florida. Wildfires are breaking out in Georgia, of all places. And scientists and weather forecasters are telling us to expect extreme heat, wildfires, and storms all summer long. 

But the president and his cabinet are still trying to pretend it’s not happening. President Trump recently claimed it’s getting cooler. And last month, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin told a conference of climate deniers that they should “celebrate vindication” now that he had granted their fondest wish.  

“Futility” is just climate denial in a new bottle.  

When he proposed repealing the endangerment finding and vehicle pollution standards last summer, Zeldin leaned heavily on a “nothing to worry about” report prepared by five climate skeptics  for the U.S. Department of Energy. But that report was thoroughly debunked by hundreds of scientists, and the National Academy of Sciences said the evidence of danger is stronger than ever and “beyond scientific dispute.” The Energy Department disbanded the group of skeptics, and the EPA was forced to abandon its report. 

The final repeal replaces the outright climate science denial with the “futility” gambit. Now the EPA is saying the climate threat is just so big that no action—even cleaning up the nation’s cars and trucks, the largest source of climate pollution—will make any difference.  

To shore up this claim, the agency conjured up a new analysis at the end of the process, with no public opportunity to comment. That analysis fudged the numbers to make the impact of vehicle standards look far smaller than it is; a petition that environmental groups filed with the EPA explaining the agency's errors and showing that these standards would deliver trillions of dollars of economic benefits over the coming decades.  

The agency’s cynical argument gets it entirely backward. Climate change is a big problem! Carbon pollution from many activities in many countries combine to create the danger. So it’s easy to say that no single action on its own will halt increases in global temperatures or rising sea levels and the heat waves, storms, and other extreme weather that result.  

But our clean air laws don’t require the EPA to identify one silver bullet action to solve the problem. The law calls on the agency to act whenever pollution sources “contribute” to the problem. As the U.S. Supreme Court said almost two decades ago in its landmark climate decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, big problems don’t get solved in one fell swoop. That’s why we need to get started by cleaning up the biggest sources, like cars and trucks, and keep moving from there.  

As the French proverb says: Little by little, the bird makes its nest.  

It’s true that we need international cooperation to tackle climate change. The United States used to be a leader and brought others to action by taking the initiative. Now others—Europe and China, for example—are leading. The Trump administration is sacrificing more than just our reputation by retreating. We’re losing in the global competition for electric vehicles and other clean technologies. And if an economy the size of ours keeps pumping out carbon pollution with abandon, the worldwide effort will fail. 

It can be hard to see sometimes, but we are making progress. We’ve had EPA tailpipe emissions standards for more than 15 years, and a new car or truck emits about 25 percent less carbon pollution than a new vehicle in 2010, even as vehicles have gotten bigger. And before Zeldin repealed the standards, they were slated to cut carbon pollution from our new vehicles by nearly seven billion tons over the next 30 years—that’s about as much as the entire U.S. economy emits in a year.  

We have the technology to make a huge difference in how bad this gets for our communities.  

In fact, cleaner vehicles save car owners money because they use less gasoline—none at all for electric vehicles—and have lower maintenance costs. That’s even more important as prices spike at the pump. The tailpipe standards that the Trump EPA repealed were projected to save Americans $180 billion—and that was before the current global oil crisis. Fewer trips to the pump yield even bigger savings now.  

While no one action on its own will halt increases in global temperatures or rising sea levels, every ton matters.  

The EPA’s “futility” argument mirrors what climate doomers are too quick to say: “Isn’t it too late? Isn’t it hopeless?”  

Not at all. Sure, it would have been better if we had acted sooner, but there are huge benefits from acting today. The best time to tackle climate change was 20 years ago; the second-best time is today.  

We need every piece of the puzzle: more electric vehicles; cleaner electricity from solar, wind, and batteries; fewer methane leaks in oil drilling; and replacement of the super pollutants currently used in refrigeration and air conditioners.  

Each of these is an environmental necessity—and a business opportunity. And cleaner cars and power will save Americans billions at the pump and on utility bills. 

That’s why NRDC and our allies have gone back to the EPA to challenge its fudged numbers, and why we’ve gone to court to enforce the Clean Air Act and reverse the agency’s declaration of surrender.  

As Rosie the Riveter would say, “We can do it.” She built one bomber at a time. That wasn’t futile. And neither are the steps we can take now to fight off the worst of climate change tomorrow.