This week the US Environmental Protection Agency is holding virtual public hearings on its reconsideration of the 2009 endangerment finding and greenhouse gas vehicle standards.

The endangerment finding is a 2009 conclusion by the EPA that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. The Trump Administration wants to rescind this finding. If they get away with it, most regulation of greenhouse gasses in the US will likely become null and void. You can read a more detailed explanation of this in my earlier post The EPA’s “Dagger to the Heart” of US Climate Regulation.

Hundreds of people signed up to speak at these public hearings, including me. The EPA had to add a couple of extra days of hearings to accommodate everyone. I spoke during the afternoon session on Tuesday, August 19, along with about 90 other people. We each got 2.5 minutes to speak. The time limit was politely but strictly enforced by the facilitator. It all worked really well over Zoom.

Some people spoke in their official or professional capacities. There were a couple of State Attorneys General in my session. Others represented various groups and organizations. But many people, like me, just spoke as private individuals.

The vast majority spoke out against the EPA’s proposal.

As I listened to the speakers ahead of me, I was struck by how many of them talked about the impact climate change is already having on them and their families. They told of experiencing serious health problems, especially asthma, from wildfire smoke, and living through heat waves where it was unsafe to leave their houses or kids at school couldn’t go outside for recess. Some had lost their homes to floods or fires and had become climate refugees.

Climate change is happening, now, in this country.

Here’s what I said:

“Good afternoon. My name is Harry Katz.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that all of the world’s current and historical anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were produced by, say, 50 foreign countries and that the United States produced none. Zero.

Now in this situation, America would still be feeling the effects of climate change. Americans would still experience more intense forest fires, floods and droughts. More deadly heatwaves. The only difference is none of this would be caused by our actions. It would all be caused by those 50 foreign countries.

What would the US do in this situation? What would our policy be?

Would the US accept excuses that restricting greenhouse gas emissions would be “futile” because other countries say they only contribute small fractions of the global total? ¹

Would we allow disputed claims from a few of their hand-picked outlier scientists to contradict overwhelming evidence from America’s own scientists? ²

Would we turn a blind eye as more Americans die each year during floods and heat waves we did not cause?

And would we tolerate a foreign assault on the wellbeing of our children and their children and the world they will inherit?

Of course not!

America would take decisive action. We would exert every possible pressure to compel those other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We would expect each of them to do their fair share.

Well if we would not accept evasion and inaction from other countries, why should we tolerate it from our own government?

Because in fact, the US is one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters. And we are major contributors to global climate change.

We would never let other countries threaten the health and welfare of our people or burden our economy with the enormous costs of climate change. So why would we do it to ourselves?

Rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding and repealing greenhouse gas regulations will harm us, our economy and our planet for this generation and generations to come.

I urge the EPA to do its job of protecting human health and the environment. Keep the endangerment finding. Keep regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Thank you.”

You can submit written comments to the EPA until September 15 by going to https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0093. 

Thanks for reading.

¹ This is one of the arguments the EPA is making in its proposal to repeal greenhouse gas regulations.

² The is one part of the EPA’s justification for rescinding the endangerment finding.