The Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering its 2009 “endangerment finding” that six “greenhouse gases,” including carbon dioxide and methane, are causing or contributing to climate change and are reasonably expected to endanger public health and welfare.

On July 29, the EPA and the Department of Energy will issue proposed rules during which the public can submit comments. Comment periods range from 30 days to 60 days. After the comment period, EPA staff will incorporate public comments and issue a final rule.

EPA’s endangerment finding was based on data from 2007. New data show that the 2009 findings are obsolete and misrepresent evidence of the effect of carbon-dioxide emissions on the climate.

Reconsideration of the endangerment finding is important because the EPA used the finding to justify sweeping restrictions on CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions. Those restrictions, in the form of emissions standards published by the EPA under the Clean Air Act, have imposed enormous costs on the American economy.

Although climate change is occurring, associated risks have been exaggerated, and proposed policy responses often rest on shaky scientific ground. Real and immediate harms from emissions cuts compelled by regulatory policy raise the costs of energy, burden Americans, reduce economic growth, and stifle job creation.

In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases meet the definition of “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. But CO₂ is not a real pollutant. It is a component of the ambient air, crucial for life on Earth. The Clean Air Act was not designed for the regulation of such essential components of the air that humans and animals breathe.

Nevertheless, in 2009, the EPA published its greenhouse gas endangerment finding, based largely on studies compiled by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, rather than on its own scientific assessments. The EPA found that CO₂ and other greenhouse gases “contribute to” dangerous air pollution in the form of climate change.

But 32 of 33 models used by the U.N. panel overestimated warming trends, raising doubts about the trends’ reliability in guiding energy and environmental policy. These models neglect analyses of natural factors, such as solar activity, that play substantial roles in climate variability, challenging the narrative that recent warming is predominantly driven by human activity.

Empirical evidence shows no long-term increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes and tornadoes, despite higher greenhouse gas concentrations. While damages from such events have risen, they are largely attributable to increased development in vulnerable areas rather than stronger storms themselves. When people build multimillion-dollar homes on the coast of Florida instead of homes that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, the same storm causes more damage.

Similarly, historical records of major river systems and long-term rainfall data reveal natural patterns of variability rather than consistent trends linked to human emissions.

Contrary to dire warnings, moderate warming and elevated CO₂ levels can yield net benefits, including reduced cold-related mortality, extended growing seasons, and enhanced agricultural productivity. Data and methodology that link climate change to rising asthma rates or higher particulate matter–related deaths reveal significant gaps and biases.

Evidence suggests that many plant and animal species demonstrate remarkable resilience and adaptability to environmental changes, undermining predictions of widespread ecosystem collapse.

The social cost of carbon, used in cost-benefit analyses to justify sweeping regulatory interventions, exaggerates benefits from climate reduction in future years. It relies on speculative assumptions and is highly sensitive to input parameters, and it has no validity as a policy tool.

While climate change deserves thoughtful attention, new data show that greenhouse gases cannot be demonstrated to significantly harm human health.

Alarmist rhetoric and extreme policy measures threaten to undermine energy affordability and economic prosperity without delivering environmental or societal benefits. Instead, policymakers should prioritize empirical evidence, technological innovation, and adaptive strategies that encourage economic growth.

The post Reversing the EPA’s Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases appeared first on The Daily Signal.