Steven Koonin, former undersecretary for science in the Energy Department, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”
The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to rescind its 2009 “endangerment finding” — the basis for government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions — has unsettled many who see it as a retreat from climate responsibility. It isn’t.
Human carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet, and the consequences deserve serious attention. But the scale and pace of decarbonization — how fast, how far and at what cost it should occur — have become defining questions for the U.S. economy and society. Those questions are too consequential to be settled by executive agencies acting on outdated assumptions. They belong to Congress.
The original finding rested on two premises: that greenhouse gas emissions posed an imminent threat to public welfare, and that rapid, economy‑wide decarbonization was both necessary and feasible. But the subsequent 15 years of scientific progress and real‑world energy experience have reshaped our understanding of climate risk and of what an energy transition at speed and scale entails.
Climate science today is more sophisticated than it was in 2009. According to United Nations climate assessments, long‑term increases have not been detected in most categories of extreme weather, and the current climate is hardly broken.
Contrary to popular perception, heat waves across much of the United States are less common than in the mid‑20th century, while cold extremes have moderated. Sea-level rise continues, but tide gauges around the globe show roughly the same average pace observed since the early 1900s.
Meanwhile, crop yields continue to rise, global mortality from extreme weather has fallen dramatically and weather‑related economic losses have declined as a fraction of GDP — signs of growing resilience rather than growing vulnerability.
Just as important, the most extreme scenarios of future warming — once widely cited in public debate — have been steadily moderated. Projected emissions have declined, and the hottest climate models have been discredited.
None of this eliminates risk. But it does challenge the plausibility of the catastrophic outcomes that shaped the original “endangerment finding.”
The second major development is empirical: The world has spent the past decade trying to decarbonize rapidly. The results have been sobering. According to a 2024 article in Science magazine, only about 4 percent of roughly 1,500 mitigation policies across dozens of countries have produced a detectable reduction in emissions.
Governments that once championed aggressive mitigation measures have delayed or scaled back their plans as high energy prices, deindustrialization and political backlash have forced policymakers to confront the limits of regulatory ambition.
Global emissions continue to rise despite trillions of dollars spent on mitigation. Coal, oil and natural gas consumption are at record highs. Even the electric vehicle market — once the emblem of the climate movement — has stalled in North America, constrained by cost, uneven charging infrastructure, and consumer preferences.
Global energy demand has been growing for decades, driven by economic development of the world’s poorer nations and largely satisfied by fossil fuels. But the explosive growth of data centers and artificial intelligence is now boosting demand in developed countries. Analysts expect U.S. electricity demand to rise sharply in the coming decade. Meeting that demand with firm, reliable generation — natural gas or nuclear — will be essential and will complicate any attempt at rapid decarbonization.
These realities are not due to either a lack of ambition or a failure of political will, much less a rejection of “the science.” They reflect the physical and economic constraints of modern energy systems. Energy policy must balance the “energy trilemma” — reliability, affordability and emissions. Policies that over-prioritize emissions reductions inevitably compromise the other dimensions. It is no coincidence that grid reliability and soaring electricity rates have become politically salient. Denial of real‑world trade-offs is more pernicious than denial of climate change itself.
The EPA’s rescission reflects the convergence of these scientific and techno‑economic realities. But it also reflects something more fundamental: the recognition that decisions of this magnitude — decisions that shape the nation’s energy system, industrial base and economic trajectory — require democratic legitimacy.
The scale and pace of decarbonization are not narrow technical matters. They determine electricity prices, manufacturing competitiveness, transportation options and the resilience of the grid. They influence national security and the country’s ability to meet the anticipated surge in digital‑era electricity demand. These choices should be made by Congress, where trade-offs can be debated openly and accountability is clear.
The EPA’s decision does not end climate action; it redirects it. Adaptation — strengthening infrastructure, improving water systems, modernizing agriculture and protecting coastlines — delivers immediate local benefits regardless of global emissions trajectories. Innovation — advances in nuclear energy, geothermal systems, energy storage and new materials — offers a long‑term path to lower emissions without demanding wrenching economic or behavioral changes.
That work, well underway in corporate, university and government laboratories worldwide, must continue whether there is an “endangerment finding” or not.
The changing climate remains a challenge. But the past decade and a half has shown the challenge to be more manageable, more nuanced and more tightly intertwined with economic and technological realities than the EPA once assumed.
Updating policy to reflect that reality is not abandonment. It is responsibility.
The post Why the EPA’s emissions reversal is the responsible decision appeared first on Washington Post.
