By Cliff Montgomery – Aug. 10th, 2025
On July 29th, the Trump administration quietly proposed that the scientific finding that has served as the basis for U.S. laws working to lower greenhouse gas emissions be rejected. The finding has been vital for federal efforts to lessen this country’s impact on global warming and its attendant climate change.
If passed, the Trump Environmental Protection Agency ruling would toss a fundamental 2009 declaration stating that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are a public welfare hazard, and are dangerous for the health of Americans.
This “endangerment finding” has long served as the legal basis for numerous rules via the Clean Air Act, that work to keep the U.S climate safe for Americans and others. Those rules have often helped to reign in the dangerous output of entities like power plants and other pollution sources such as motor vehicles, that are quickly heating the planet.
Trump EPA head Lee Zeldin informed people of the proposal on an Internet podcast, shortly before its official announcement later that day in Indiana.
Now, Zeldin is Trump’s man, so that that means two things: 1.) Zeldin will happily praise an end to any law that holds the wealthy accountable for their actions; 2.) For no good reason, he assumes that any investment focusing on non-wealthy people can only lose money for the entire economy.
Repealing the endangerment finding “will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,” Zeldin said on the Ruthless podcast.
“There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,” Zeldin said. “They created this endangerment finding and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence, in many cases, a lot of segments of our economy. And it cost Americans a lot of money.”
But here’s the problem: Climate change is itself one of the greatest drains on the U.S. economy – and it will most certainly get worse. Estimates reveal the fallout of these extreme changes in weather already cost the U.S. economy at least $150 billion every year. The 2023 federal assessment that revealed this figure took into account such direct impacts as agricultural losses, damage to infrastructure, and injuries. But even this large number fails to count the full economic drain on our country. The assessment does not tally the annual healthcare costs, losses of a balanced, sustainable ecosystem, and the overall effect an increasingly hotter, day-to-day environment will have on human beings in the United States.
Mr. Zeldin doesn’t quite get that – far from being a drain on businesses – an increasing number of U.S. companies are embracing cleaner, more “green” ways of doing business, precisely because they often increase their profits by making such investments.
Consider U.S. power plants. Since 2009, the plants have invested heavily in switching over from obsolete and increasingly inefficient forms of energy production like the use of coal towards modern, more fuel-efficient forms of production, such as solar, wind, natural gas and battery storage. This more efficient energy production has allowed them to reap massive profits in that time.
Or car companies. Data reveal a surging demand for more efficient, hybrid cars that get much of their power from electricity. And they are an increasingly profitable segment of U.S. manufacturers’ show room offerings, according to Investors’ Business Daily.
In fact, U.S. businesses that invest in “green” technology and product creation often has created a windfall of financial gains.
Research reveals a clear link between a commitment to ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) activity and a long-term profitability.
In fact, a study discovered that U.S. companies working to follow ESG enjoyed an 11% average increase in profits over a three-year period.
More and more consumers these days prefer “green” products and services. Businesses providing such products are quite attractive to this increasingly large group. That often translates to increased market share and greater revenue. Consumers are often quite happy to pay top-dollar for “green” products and services.
Money is also made from the more “green” methods of service and manufacture. Such modern methods routinely lead to great cost savings on operational expenses and utility bills.
Trump’s EPA proposal will go though a standard, purposely long process of review – this will include a time for public comments – before the administration could make it official policy. Thus if a change does occur, it probably would happen next year. People and groups tied to environmental concerns will probably combat such a dangerous ruling in court. For the sake of maintaining an environment capable of sustaining a variety of life, we may hope it never gets that far.
