 |
|
|
|||||
Most of the major climate regulations in the United States are underpinned by one important document: Its called the endangerment finding, and it concludes that greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to human health and welfare. The Trump administration is vowing to eliminate it. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin referred to the 2009 endangerment finding as the holy grail of the climate religion when he announced on March 12, 2025, that he would reconsider the finding and all U.S. climate regulations and actions that rely on it. That would include rules to control planet-warming emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane from power plants, vehicles and oil and gas operations. But revoking the endangerment finding isnt a simple task. And doing so could have unintended consequences for the very industries Trump is trying to help. As a law professor, I have tracked federal climate regulations and the lawsuits and court rulings that have followed them over the past 25 years. To understand the challenges, lets look at the endangerment findings origins and Zeldins options. Origin and limits of the endangerment finding In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that six greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA has a duty under the same law to determine whether they pose a danger to public health or welfare. The court also ruled that once the EPA made an endangerment finding, the agency would have a mandatory duty under the Clean Air Act to regulate all sources that contribute to the danger. The Court emphasized that the endangerment finding was a scientific determination and rejected a laundry list of policy arguments made by the George W. Bush administration for why the government preferred to use nonregulatory approaches to reduce emissions. The court said the only question was whether sufficient scientific evidence exists to determine whether greenhouse gases are harmful. The endangerment finding was the EPAs response. The finding was challenged and upheld in 2012 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In that case, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, the court found that the body of scientific evidence marshaled by the EPA in support of the endangerment finding is substantial. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision. The endangerment finding was updated and confirmed by the EPA in 2015 and 2016. Challenging the endangerment finding The scientific basis for the endangerment finding is stronger today than it was in 2009. The latest assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, involving hundreds of scientists and thousands of studies from around the world, concluded that the scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that greenhouse gases from human activities are causing it. According to the National Climate Assessment released in 2023, the effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States. Summer temperatures have climbed in much of the U.S. and the world as greenhouse gas emissions have risen. [Image: Fifth National Climate Assessment] During President Donald Trumps first term, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt considered repealing the endangerment finding but ultimately decided against it. In fact, he relied on it in proposing the Affordable Clean Energy Rule to replace President Barack Obamas Clean Power Plan for regulating emissions for coal-fired power plants. What happens if the EPA revokes the endangerment finding? For the Trump administration to now revoke that finding, Zeldin must first recruit new members of the EPAs Science Advisory Board to replace those dismissed by the Trump administration. Congress created the board in 1978 to provide independent, unbiased scientific advice to the EPA administrator, and it has consistently supported the 2009 endangerment finding. Zeldin must then initiate rulemaking in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, provide the opportunity for public comment and respond to comments that are likely to be voluminous. This process could take several months if done properly. If Zeldin then decides to revoke the endangerment finding, lawsuits will immediately challenge the move. Even if Zeldin is able to revoke the finding, that does not automatically repeal all the rules that rely on it. Each of those rules must go throgh separate rulemaking processes that will also take months. Zeldin could simply refuse to enforce the rules on the books while he reconsiders the endangerment finding. However, a blanket policy abdicating any enforcement responsibility could be challenged in lawsuits as arbitrary and capricious. Further, the regulated industries would be taking a chance if they delayed complying with regulations only to find the endangerment finding and climate laws still in place. Zeldins cost argument Zeldin previewed his arguments in a news release on March 12. His first argument is that the 2009 endangerment finding did not consider costs. However, that argument was rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. Cost becomes relevant once the EPA considers new regulationsafter the endangerment finding. Moreover, in a unanimous 2001 decision, the Supreme Court in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations held that the EPA cannot consider cost in setting air quality standards. A repeal could backfire Repealing the endangerment finding could also backfire on the fossil fuel industry. States and cities have filed dozens of lawsuits against the major oil companies. The industrys strongest argument has been that these cases are preempted by federal law. In AEP v. Connecticut in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law, barring state claims for remedies related to damages from climate change. However, if the endangerment finding is repealed, then there is arguably no basis for federal preemption, and these state lawsuits would have legal grounds. Prominent industry lawyers have warned the EPA about this and urged it to focus instead on changing individual regulations. The industry is concerned enough that it may try to get Congress to grant it immunity from climate lawsuits. To the extent that Zeldin is counting on the conservative Supreme Court to back him up, he may be disappointed. In 2024, the court overturned the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to agencies reasonable interpretations when laws were ambiguous. That means Zeldins reinterpretation of the statute is not entitled to deference. Nor can he count on the court overturning its Massachusetts v. EPA ruling to free him to disregard science for policy reasons. Patrick Parenteau is a professor of law emeritus at the Vermont Law & Graduate School. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
After grabbing a handful of popcorn at an event held by California-based startup Savor, my fingers are left with a familiar sheen: the residue of the butter that coats the small kernels. When I later grab a blini (topped with lentils), the small pancake is so full of butter that it immediately coats my tongue in a velvety layer of fat. A mushroom scallop, grilled in butter, is rich and savory. The butter used in all these dishes is rich, creamy, indulgent. But it isn’t made from animals. It isnt even made from plants, like avocado oil or coconut oil or olive oil. Instead, its made from energyon this night specifically, methane. [Photo: courtesy Savor] Savor, a 3-year-old startup backed by Bill Gates, makes fats and oils without agriculture. Usually, the most basic formula to create any sort of fat goes like this: Energy (predominantly from the sun, though you could also use something like indoor grow lights) grows plants, which can then be turned into oils themselves, or be fed to livestock, which then produce milk that’s turned into butter. Savor skips all those in-between steps. Instead, energymethane, captured carbon dioxide, or even green hydrogenis turned into butter through a thermochemical process that turns carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen into fatty acids. Those fatty acids can then be composed and rearranged to form triglycerides that make up different fats like butter, palm oil, cocoa butter, and more. Its Earths most ancient chemistry, says Kathleen Alexander, cofounder and CEO of Savor, explaining how billions of years ago, at the bottom of the ocean, hydrothermal vents created a chemical reaction between hydrogen and carbon dioxide to form fatty acids. [Photo: courtesy Savor] That means Savors butter eschews not only animals and plants but also the land associated with agriculture, hormones, antibiotics, and fertilizersall of which have environmental impacts. All told, the current production of fats and oils makes up around 7% of global emissions, per a Savor calculation done in collaboration with environmental scientists. Thats more than double the global emissions of the aviation industry. Savor currently uses methane or carbon dioxide emitted from factories, and aims to work with companies focused on air capture, or extracting CO2 directly from the atmosphere. For so long, cofounder Ian McKay says, weve exploited nature to make all of our food. I think Savor is considering, are there cases where you can leave nature out and still get what you want? [Photo: Sara S. Wallach/courtesy Savor] Throughout the meal at Savors event, the butter was featured in a variety of ways. Served in a ramekin alongside bread and crudités, it had a clean taste, with a slightly earthy, peppery finish, thanks to the addition of rosemary. By itself, the butter wasnt the richest or saltiestit was formulated to be more of a pastry butter, the team explained, to laminate well into doughs; it was still creamy, and held up well while sitting out at the table. It was thick and spreadable, not melting too quickly like oil-based butter alternatives, but easily saturating the bread. (Savor’s butter is also allergen-free.) [Photo: Sara S. Wallach/courtesy Savor] A lions mane mushroom steak cooked in the butter was meaty, juicy, and comforting, and the Savor butter even appeared in the cherry gastrique atop the mushroom, giving it a silky depth. The chocolate tart had a dense but flaky crust, with Savor butter salted caramel and a melt-in-your-mouth ganache. [Photo: Sara S. Wallach/courtesy Savor] The meal was meant to show the variety of ways Savors butter can be used, fitting into chefs existing recipes and traditional cooking methods. It also marked Savors commercial launch. The startups first customers this year include Michelin-starred restaurants SingleThread and One65, and San Franciscos Jane the Bakery. Savor has been working with chefs over the past year to test its butter and collaborate on creations. (The company is focused on launching as an ingredient supplier first, rather than direct to consumers on grocery store shelves.) In a video on Savors website, pastry chef Juan Contreras of three-Michelin-starred restaurant Atelier Crenn, uses Savor butter to make a classic brioche, a recipe he says is inherently all about the butter. Its also a recipe the San Francisco restaurant took off its menu when it stopped serving dairy. Its gotten to the point now where its pretty much just like working with dairy-based butter, he says in the Savor video. If I got served that at a restaurant . . . I would think its just regular butter.
Category:
E-Commerce
Thousands of tonnes of plastic pollution could be escaping into the environment every year . . . from our mouths. Most chewing gum on sale is made from a variety of oil-based synthetic rubberssimilar to the plastic material used in car tires. If you find that thought slightly unsettling, you are not alone. I have been researching and speaking about the plastic pollution problem for 15 years. The people I talk to are always surprised, and disgusted, when they find out theyve been chewing on a lump of malleable plastic. Most manufacturers just dont advertise what gum is actually made ofthey dodge around the detail by listing gum base in the ingredients. Theres no strict definition of synthetic gum base. Chewing gum brand, Wrigley Extra partners with dental professionals around the world to promote the use of sugar-free chewing gum to improve oral health. The brands Wrigley Oral Health Program states that: Gum base puts the “chew in chewing gum, binding all the ingredients together for a smooth, soft texture. We use synthetic gum base materials for a consistent and safe base that provides longer-lasting flavor, improved texture, and reduced tackiness. It almost sounds harmless. But chemical analysis shows that gum contains styrene-butadiene (the durable synthetic chemical used to make car tyres), polyethylene (the plastic used to make carrier bags and bottles) and polyvinyl acetate (woodglue) as well as some sweetener and flavoring. The chewing gum industry is big business, worth an estimated $48.68 billion (37.7 billion pounds) in 2025. Three companies own 75% of the market share, the largest of which is Wrigley, with an estimated 35%. There are few reliable statistics available about the amount of gum being produced, but one peer-reviewed global estimate states 1.74 trillion pieces are made per year. I examined several types of gum and found that the most common weight of an individual piece of gum is 1.4 gramsthat means that globally, a staggering 2.436 million tonnes of gum are produced each year. About a third (30%) of that weight, or just over 730,000 tonnes, is synthetic gum base. If the idea of chewing plastic isnt disturbing enough, consider what happens after you spit it out. Most people have experienced discarded gum under bench seats, school desks, and on street pavements. But, like other plastics, synthetic chewing gum does not biodegrade and can persist in the environment for many years. In the environment, it will harden, crack, and break down into microplastics but this can take decades. Cleaning it up is not cheap because it is labor intensive. The average cost is $1.94 (1.50 pounds) per square meter, and estimates suggest that the annual cleanup cost for chewing gum pollution for councils in the U.K. is around 7 million pounds (thats more than $9 million). There have been some efforts to address the problem. In many public locations around the U.K., gum collection pots supplied by Dutch company Gumdrop Ltd. have been installed to collect and recycle used gum. Signage provided by councils encouraging responsible disposal is also now a regular feature in some U.K. high streets, and there is a growing number of small producers offering plant-based alternatives. In the U.K., the environmental charity Keep Britain Tidy launched the chewing gum task force in 2021. This collaboration involves three major manufacturers who have committed to investing up to 10 million pounds in order to clean up “historic gum staining and changing behavior so that more people bin their gum. But, here lies the crux of the issue. The first objective implies that cleaning up gum is a solution to this form of plastic pollution; it isnt. Manufacturers making a financial contribution to cleanup efforts is like plastic manufacturers paying for litter pickers and bin bags at volunteer beach cleans. Neither addresses the root cause of the problem. Binning gum is not the solution either. Addressing gum as a plastic pollutant dictates that the prevention of gum pollution should include the well-known tenets, like all plastic pollution, of reduce, reuse, recycle and redesign. It is not only a disposal issue. Another issue that I have uncovered is definition. In the two annual reports published by the gum litter task force since its inception, there is no mention of the word pollution. The distinction between litter and pollution is important. By calling it chewing gum pollution, the narrative changes from an individual negligence issue to a corporate one. That places an onus for accountability on the producers rather than the consumers. Single-use solutions Like single-use plastic items, chewing gum pollution needs to be tackled from all angleseducation, reduction, alternatives, innovation, producer responsibility, and legislation. Educating people about the contents of gum and the environmental consequences those ingredients have will reduce consumption and encourage better disposal habits. More transparent labeling on packaging would empower shoppers to make informed choices. Stricter regulations can hold manufacturers to accounta levy tax on synthetic gum can help pay for clean ups. In turn, this would incentivize more investment in plant-based gums and other sustainable alternatives. We can all reduce the environmental consequences of this plastic pollution by kicking the gum habit, calling on councils to enforce stricter pollution penalties, and encouraging governments to put a tax levy on manufacturers to fund cleanups and force them to list the contents of gum base. Throwing away any non-disposable, inorganic products is unsustainable. Chewing gum pollution is just another form of plastic pollution. Its time we start treating it as such. David Jones is a sessional teaching fellow at the School of the Environment and Life Sciences at the University of Portsmouth. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||