The Heritage Foundation has expressed support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent decision to revoke the endangerment finding established during the Obama administration. This regulation had provided the legal basis for a range of greenhouse gas emissions controls.
Derrick Morgan, executive vice president at The Heritage Foundation, commented on the move:
“President Trump’s rescission of the Obama administration’s 2009 Endangerment Finding is on solid legal, economic, and scientific grounds.
“The Clean Air Act simply does not give EPA the power of a central planner for the economy, as Obama and Biden’s greenhouse gas regulations envisioned. Catastrophic global warming claims relied on models that systematically overstated the warming and extreme weather events that have occurred since, while the impact of eliminating U.S. vehicle GHGs is so vanishingly small that it wouldn’t even be measurable.
“Combined with needed permitting reform, this action can pave the way for the energy abundance and affordability that America’s working families need and deserve while bringing to bear our plentiful energy resources to compete with China.”
According to The Heritage Foundation, revoking these regulations will result in significant financial savings for Americans, lower road fatalities and injuries, and stimulate economic growth. Their research indicates that although climate change exists, its impacts are exaggerated and should not be used as justification for regulating sectors like energy or automotive manufacturing.
Dr. E.J. Antoni, chief economist and acting director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Studies at The Heritage Foundation, added:
“Rescinding this failed bureaucratic overreach is tremendous news for the American people and American business. The empirical evidence is quite clear: this reduction in burdensome, inefficient regulation will save consumers, workers, and employers well over $1 trillion. It’s welcome news that, under the Trump administration, the American people come first once again, not radical political ideology.”
