In what Administrator Lee Zeldin called the "largest deregulatory action in U.S. history," the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a proposal to repeal the 2009 endangerment findia decision that underpins federal rules on carbon emissions from vehicles, power plants, and the oil and gas sector.

The proposed repeal is bolstered by a new report authored by five researchers with a long history of challenging mainstream climate science. These include John Christy, Roy Spencer, Steven E. Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Judith Curry-figures frequently cited in climate skeptic circles. Their findings, assembled in just two months, question both the urgency and the scope of climate change impacts, positioning the move as a challenge to what Zeldin described as the "climate change religion."

The original 2009 finding, initiated under court order following the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, has served as the legal foundation for critical climate regulations. By recognizing greenhouse gases as a threat to public health, it authorized the EPA to set national limits on emissions. Repealing it would remove the agency's obligation-and arguably, its authority-to address climate pollution under the Clean Air Act.

According to the EPA's new proposal, while global emissions have risen, the impacts in the U.S. have not materialized as projected in 2009. The document asserts that rising emissions are now "driven primarily by increased emissions from foreign sources," dismissing much of the existing scientific consensus on climate risks.

This position, however, stands in stark contrast to the broader scientific community. Since 2009, global temperatures have increased by 0.45 degrees Celsius, with 2024 marking another year exceeding the 1.5-degree Celsius threshold outlined in the Paris Agreement. Climate scientists, including Zeke Hausfather and Phil Duffy, argue the new report lacks credibility and cherry-picks data to support a predetermined political outcome.

Hausfather, a respected climate researcher, criticized the EPA-backed report as reading "like a blog post," rehashing debunked claims and omitting key context. Duffy, a former White House advisor, emphasized that the evidence of climate change has only grown stronger, noting its visible impacts on food systems, water availability, and insurance markets-especially critical for U.S. agriculture.

The agricultural sector, reliant on predictable weather and climate stability, is among the most vulnerable to the rollback of these protections. Global warming has intensified extreme weather events, including floods, droughts, and wildfires, all of which threaten crop yields, livestock health, and rural infrastructure.

Furthermore, the EPA's move would undermine clean vehicle standards aimed at curbing transportation-related emissions-an essential step in reducing the sector's climate footprint. The Biden administration had recently tightened these standards to encourage adoption of hybrids and electric vehicles, with potential benefits for rural economies and energy independence.

While Zeldin and Energy Secretary Chris Wrightd the repeal as a necessary check on regulatory overreach, critics warn it sets a dangerous precedent. Wright's department also played a role in commissioning the new report, bringing in several of its authors shortly before its release.

In contrast to the administration's claims, both the Fourth and Fifth U.S. Climate Assessments-developed by government scientists and released during Republican and Democratic administrations alike-affirm that climate change is accelerating, largely due to human activities.

The repeal effort, if successful, could delay or derail urgently needed climate mitigation strategies. As agriculture professionals assess the implications, they must consider not only regulatory uncertainty but the very real impacts of a changing climate on productivity, sustainability, and rural livelihoods.