**Washington Joins Coalition Against EPA’s Unsubstantiated Claim on Greenhouse Gases and Public Health**

health and environmental regulation.">

September 22, 2025

States Challenge EPA’s Proposed Reversal of Climate Change Findings

Washington State, alongside a broad coalition of 22 other states, the District of Columbia, and nine local governments, is formally opposing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent proposal. The proposal seeks to dismantle the agency’s landmark 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to public health and contribute to climate change.

The EPA’s Proposed Action

last month, the current administration announced its intention to rescind the 2009 Endangerment finding, asserting that the EPA lacks the authority to regulate pollutants linked to climate change. This action would also eliminate existing EPA standards for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The move has sparked widespread criticism from environmental groups and state officials alike.

Legal and Scientific Arguments Against the Proposal

The coalition submitted a detailed comment letter to the EPA, arguing that reversing the 2009 finding would directly contradict established legal precedents, including a 2007 Supreme court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The letter further emphasizes that the proposal disregards overwhelming scientific consensus on the dangers of climate change.

“The federal goverment is jeopardizing the well-being of Washington residents with its attempts to weaken climate protections,” stated Attorney General Nick Brown. “At a time when collaborative action is essential to reduce greenhouse gases, the EPA is taking steps that favor major polluters.”

Evidence of Climate Change Impacts

Scientific research consistently demonstrates the tangible and far-reaching effects of climate change across the United States. In Washington State, a severe heatwave in 2021 resulted in over 100 heat-related fatalities. Additionally, a decline in snowpack levels threatens the state’s water supply for both drinking and agricultural purposes. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the last decade has been the warmest on record globally.

Year	Global Temperature Anomaly (compared to 1951-1980 average)
2014	0.69°C
2015	0.87°C
2016	1.02°C
2017	0.93°C
2018	0.85°C
2019	0.98°C
2020	1.02°C
2023	1.48°C

Concerns Over the Climate Working Group Report

The EPA’s proposal relies heavily on a report from the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group. Tho, the coalition argues that this report is fundamentally flawed and lacks a solid legal or scientific basis.The creation of the Climate Working Group has been criticized for its selection of individuals known for climate change skepticism and its failure to adhere to standard scientific integrity protocols and openness requirements, as outlined in the Federal Advisory Committee act (FACA).

The National Academies of Sciences,Engineering,and Medicine recently affirmed that the EPA’s 2009 finding remains accurate and is supported by even stronger evidence today.

Broad Coalition Opposing the EPA

Joining washington in this legal challenge are the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York, as well as officials from Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, hawaii, Illinois, Maine, maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Several major cities – including Chicago, New York, and Oakland – and counties in California and Washington State are also participating in the opposition.

Understanding the Endangerment Finding

The 2009 Endangerment Finding was a pivotal moment in U.S. climate policy. It established the scientific basis for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Reversing this finding would considerably weaken the federal government’s ability to address climate change and protect public health. The ongoing debate underscores the complex interplay between scientific evidence, legal frameworks, and political considerations in environmental regulation.

Frequently Asked Questions about the EPA Proposal

What is the EPA’s Endangerment Finding?

The Endangerment Finding is the EPA’s determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare by contributing to climate change.

Why is the EPA proposing to reverse this finding?

The EPA claims it lacks the authority to regulate pollution that contributes to climate change and wants to eliminate existing vehicle emission standards.

What are the potential consequences of reversing the finding?

It could weaken federal climate regulations, increase pollution, and harm public health, especially for vulnerable populations.

What legal precedents support the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases?

The 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA confirmed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act.

What is the role of the Climate Working Group in this controversy?

The EPA is relying on a report from this group,which has been criticized for lacking scientific integrity and transparency.

What is the significance of the coalition opposing the EPA’s proposal?

The broad coalition of states and local governments demonstrates widespread concern about the potential impacts of the proposed reversal.

Do you think the EPA’s proposal will ultimately be prosperous? How will this affect climate policy in the coming years?

Share your thoughts in the comments below and help us continue the conversation!

What specific evidence does the coalition argue is lacking to support the EPA’s claims linking greenhouse gas emissions to public health crises?

The growing Opposition to EPA Regulations

Washington State has officially joined a multi-state coalition challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent assertions linking specific greenhouse gas emissions to direct and immediate public health crises. This move signals a growing wave of resistance against what critics are calling “overreach” and “scientifically questionable” regulatory actions. The coalition, now including Washington, argues the EPA’s claims lack sufficient evidentiary support and threaten economic stability without demonstrably improving public health outcomes. This dispute centers around proposed regulations impacting various industries, including energy production, manufacturing, and transportation.

Understanding the EPA’s Claims

The EPA’s core argument revolves around the direct correlation between increased levels of certain greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide – and a rise in respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular problems, and other health concerns. The agency proposes stricter emission standards based on these findings, potentially leading to notable operational changes and financial burdens for businesses.

Specifically, the EPA’s report highlights:

* Increased Asthma Rates: Alleged link between particulate matter (often co-occurring with greenhouse gas emissions) and asthma exacerbations.

* Cardiovascular Strain: Claims of a direct impact of air pollution on heart health, leading to increased hospitalizations.

* Premature Mortality: Projections of increased mortality rates attributed to long-term exposure to pollutants.

However, the coalition contends these links are not definitively established and rely on modeling with inherent uncertainties.

Washington State’s Rationale for Joining the Coalition

Washington’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, announced the state’s participation, citing concerns about the economic impact on Washington businesses and the lack of robust scientific backing for the EPA’s claims.

“While we are deeply committed to environmental protection and public health, we cannot support regulations based on shaky science and potentially devastating economic consequences,” Ferguson stated in a press release. “We need a balanced approach that prioritizes both environmental sustainability and economic prosperity.”

Washington’s key concerns include:

* Impact on Energy Costs: Increased compliance costs for energy producers could translate to higher electricity rates for consumers.

* Manufacturing Job Losses: Stricter regulations could force manufacturers to relocate to states with less stringent environmental standards.

* Agricultural Disruptions: Regulations impacting fertilizer use (a source of nitrous oxide) could negatively affect agricultural yields and farm incomes.

The Coalition’s Legal Strategy

The coalition is preparing to file a formal legal challenge to the EPA’s regulations,arguing that the agency:

1. Exceeded its Statutory Authority: The EPA’s actions go beyond the scope of authority granted by the Clean Air Act.
2. Failed to Conduct a proper Cost-Benefit Analysis: The economic costs of the regulations outweigh the purported public health benefits.
3. Relied on Flawed Scientific Data: The EPA’s conclusions are based on incomplete or unreliable data.

The legal challenge will likely focus on the EPA’s methodology for assessing the health impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and the agency’s failure to adequately consider alternative regulatory approaches.

Examining the Scientific Debate: Greenhouse Gases and Public Health

The relationship between greenhouse gases and public health is complex and subject to ongoing scientific debate.While it’s widely accepted that air pollution,in general,poses health risks,the direct causal link between specific greenhouse gases and specific health outcomes is less clear.

Here’s a breakdown of the key arguments:

* Proponents of the EPA’s View: Argue that greenhouse gases contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone and particulate matter, which are known respiratory irritants. They also point to the broader impacts of climate change – such as increased heat waves and extreme weather events – as exacerbating health risks.

* Critics of the EPA’s View: Contend that the EPA’s models overestimate the health impacts of greenhouse gases and fail to account for other contributing factors, such as socioeconomic conditions and lifestyle choices. They also argue that the focus on greenhouse gases distracts from addressing more immediate and localized air pollution problems.

The Role of Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

A central point of contention is the role of particulate matter (PM2.5), tiny airborne particles that can penetrate deep into the lungs. While PM2.5 is often associated with combustion sources (including those that also emit greenhouse gases), it’s not solely a product of greenhouse gas emissions.

Reducing PM2.5 levels through targeted pollution control measures is widely supported, but the coalition argues that conflating PM2.5 with greenhouse gases is misleading and justifies overly broad regulations.

Potential Economic consequences of the EPA Regulations

The EPA’s proposed regulations are projected to have a significant economic impact, particularly on energy-intensive industries.

* Increased Energy Costs: Compliance costs for power plants could lead to higher electricity prices for consumers and businesses.

* manufacturing Job Losses: Companies may be forced to reduce production or relocate to states with less stringent regulations.

* **Reduced