The past year has been an incredibly troubling time in the U.S. regarding the dismantling of key environmental and social initiatives, and the current Administration has demonstrated that it is committed to going even further.

Early in February, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rescinded the Endangerment Finding, a landmark 2009 update which found that current and projected concentrations of the six key greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. 

For quick historical perspective, as a result of this finding, the EPA was legally required to regulate such greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act of 1970, which (as noted in this excellent summary piece by the Natural Resources Defense Council) led to standards for limiting atmospheric pollution from power plants, oil and gas operations, and motor vehicles.

Sarah Brown at the World Resources Institute (WRI) effectively described the “sweeping” impact of the rescission, noting that the endangerment finding “underpinned regulations across multiple sectors, including emissions limits for consumer vehicles, commercial vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, standards for coal-fired and natural gas power plants, and federal sustainability requirements that shape government procurement and broader market behavior.” 

In addition to further suppressing any grants that might focus on emissions reduction, Brown noted that “without the endangerment finding, regulating greenhouse gas emissions is no longer a legal requirement.  Significantly, she added the obvious and powerful point that “the science hasn’t changed, but the obligation to act on it has been removed.”

Astonishingly, eliminating that legal requirement was exactly the intent of the current administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.    

In a newly updated webpage, the EPA points to the rescission of the Endangerment Finding, adding that without it, the organization now “lacks statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to prescribe standards for GHG emissions” and has therefore repealed such standards for on-highway vehicles and engines.  Such manufacturers “no longer have any future obligations for the measurement, control, and reporting of GHG emissions.”  

I think it’s important for all of us to step back and reflect on this action:  The very agency tasked with ensuring a safe environment for Americans has just taken a major step to do exactly the opposite.

And of course, since warming-related emissions are not constrained by country borders, the EPA’s action endangers the rest of the world as well – particularly the most vulnerable countries who continue to bear the excessive costs of developed country emissions without any associated economic benefits.

The term “disconnect” seems grossly inadequate to describe this situation.

The rescission of the Endangerment Finding follows a slew of pro-fossil fuel and anti-renewable energy actions taken by the Trump administration, including the (second) U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the suspension of offshore wind energy projects, the cancellation of grants supporting clean energy projects, the easing of limits on toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, a directive to the Department of Defense to purchase electricity from coal-fired power plants, and more. 

And the rescission is clearly in direct conflict with the mission of the EPA, which is to protect human health and the environment.

Beyond the negative health and economic impacts to U.S. (and global) citizens (actively subsidizing the fossil fuel economy at the expense of clean energy innovation is a losing strategy on multiple fronts, including economic, national, and global security), it is critical to note:  These actions send a loud signal to other nations of the world that backtracking on renewable energy and climate commitments is wholly permissible.

For example, as Politico just reported, the Italian government is calling on the European Union to suspend its Emissions Trading System (ETS), a cap and trade platform initiated in 2005 which requires polluters to pay for their GHG emissions, in advance of a broad review later this year.

In addition, The Guardian referred to the Administration’s “abdication” on climate, with Sue Biniaz (former deputy climate envoy under the Biden Administration) noting that “other countries may also use the U.S.’s lack of climate ambition to justify their own.”

Thus, ten years on from the Paris Agreement, at a time when the world is most in need of leadership to drive global collaborative efforts on emissions-driven warming (which directly impacts multiple Sustainable Development Goals, global migration, and global security), the actions of the U.S. over the last 14 months are instead callously divisive.

In a powerful published statement on EPA’s rescission of the Endangerment Finding, WRI’s U.S. Director David Widaswky commented on the gravity of the action as follows:

“Most people have never heard of this safeguard — the “endangerment” finding — but repealing it sends a clear message: this government doesn’t care.  It doesn’t care that hotter summers are driving up energy bills and sending people to emergency rooms.  It doesn’t care that extreme weather is raising homeowner insurance, pricing families out of mortgages and homes.  It doesn’t care that many businesses will now no longer be protected from lawsuits over climate effects. It doesn’t care that farmers are losing crops and livestock, raising the price of groceries.  The bottom line is that repealing these protections will make everyday life more expensive, more risky and more uncertain for Americans.

He added, “EPA’s own settled science shows that managing greenhouse gases is fundamental to protecting Americans.  Rolling back these safeguards is a dangerous breach of responsibility to protect people, the environment, and our economy, benefitting polluters at the expense of all people.”

Ignoring Science and Signals

Beyond ignoring its own science, today’s EPA took this action despite countless signals of the essential need to take aggressive and rapid action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to stem warming, and to actively collaborate with other nations of the world to do the same. 

The warning signs are clear.

Drought, excessive heat, extreme storms, colossal wildfires, ocean acidification, melting glaciers – and the associated staggering human and economic costs – are now well familiar to everyone in the U.S.

The 2025 Global Climate Highlights report shows that 2024 was the warmest year on record, and that the average temperature for the three-year period from 2023 to 2025 was the first such three-year average to exceed 1.5°C (the key temperature goal of the Paris Agreement). 

In addition, the report noted that the past eleven years (2025-2025) were among the 11 warmest on record, and that the annual average sea surface temperature (SST) was the third highest on record.  

The authors cited two factors behind the record warmth of the last three years – accelerating human-induced climate warming (due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere coupled with reduced beneficial uptake from natural carbon sinks) and exceptionally high sea surface temperatures.

Indeed, the updated climate stripe graphic from Professor Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading is a powerful visual of the global warming trend.

It goes without saying that the last thing the world needs is a host of intentional governmental policies from the largest developed countries to increase greenhouse gas emissions.  Instead, accelerated collaborative action from such countries, especially the U.S., is needed.

UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report 2025 paints a very concerning picture related to the insufficient pace of global action on warming, noting that at this point, “reductions to annual emissions of 35 per cent and 55 per cent, compared with 2019 levels, are needed in 2035 to align with the Paris Agreement 2°C and 1.5°C pathways, respectively.” 

Further, “Given the size of the cuts needed, the short time available to deliver them and a challenging political climate, a higher exceedance of 1.5°C will happen, very likely within the next decade.” 

This is a second point on which we should step back and reflect:  Just ten years on from the Paris Agreement, in which 195 Parties committed to holding the average global temperature increase to well below 2.0°C and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C, we are already on the doorstep of the latter.

The report also reminds us that every fraction of a degree of warming matters, given negative impacts on the most vulnerable across the world and the linkage to tipping points that could lead to irreversible changes.   

Beyond the UNEP warning above, a recent study by S&P Global (Sustainability Insights: Why Planning For A 2.3°C Warmer World Is Critical This Decade And Next) estimates a 90% likelihood that average global temperature will exceed the 1.5°C limit by 2040, and a 50% likelihood that it will exceed 2.3°C by then (reaching about 2.8°C by the end of the century).

Last, the recent Planetary Health Check 2025 report states that we have now breached seven of the nine critical planetary boundaries that regulate life on Earth, with all seven showing signs of increasing pressure that suggests “further destabilization and deterioration of planetary health in the near future.”  On climate change, the report notes “Earth’s climate is in the danger zone: Greenhouse gas concentrations have reached record levels, global warming appears to be accelerating, and conditions are continuing to worsen.” 

Yet despite all of these warnings, a recent survey revealed that 38% of U.S. CEOs (and 20% of global CEOs) indicated that sustainability-focused investments are not a priority in 2026.

And last July, Trellis covered a study from its data partner noting that 70% of experts cited a significant backlash against the sustainability agenda in their country – up 13 percentage points from 2024.

Choosing Our Future

Clearly, this is not the time for leading developed countries like the U.S. to take actions that exacerbate emissions-driven warming while also encouraging other nations to do the same. 

We are in desperate need of responsible leadership not only on climate change, but on multiple other critical (and related) challenges underlying the Sustainable Development Goals, including food security, water security, biodiversity loss, deforestation, ocean health, and more.

And as noted above, while today’s U.S. EPA is attempting to project that the obligation to act on emissions-driven warming has been removed with the rescission of the Endangerment Finding, the obligation for all of us – particularly in the U.S. – to take robust action on climate change and related SDG challenges is greater than ever.

As noted, this past year has been a very troubling time in the sustainability space, and deep reflection on the EPA’s rescission of the Endangerment Finding this month left me with two key points.

First, as noted on this blog often, we have a choice.  We can, and must, choose action over acquiescence on climate and sustainability goals.

Consumers, educators, business and NGO leaders, and policymakers all have a role to play – and we all need to find our action points, driven by our individual purpose.

On that score, I found inspiration this month from this short video (Our Planet. Our Purpose) from UNEP in support of the organization’s 2025 Annual Report.  In it, numerous individuals share the purpose that is driving their work to benefit people and planet, including advancing circularity, convening nations, clean energy, clean mobility, sustainable buildings, clean air, chemicals and waste, conserving biodiversity, protecting the oceans, climate and conflict, and more.

Watching it, I was reminded of the importance of revisiting sources of inspiration to reinforce our action focus.

Second, we all must think and speak much more in terms of the global commons and humanity. 

On that score, I point readers to the work of Pope Francis in Laudato Si, a document incredibly rich in inspirational points for positive change (and one to which I return often).

Here, Pope Francis provided excellent framing regarding the importance of global collaborative efforts on climate change and sustainability, noting that “climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods.  It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.”

He added that “the urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development.” 

In other words, we need to care about each other and the planet on which we jointly exist.

And he called on us to forge a “new dialogue” about how our actions are shaping the future of the planet, noting that “we need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all.”

Several of his points are particularly appropriate given the EPA’s recent action. 

For example, he called for “a new and universal solidarity,” noting that “the climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all.”

He reminded us that the worst impacts of climate change would likely be felt by developing countries in the coming years and lamented the fact that “there is widespread indifference” to the suffering of these nations.

And he stressed the “urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy.”

He also chided world leaders on weak action to protect the environment, adding that too many special interests and economic interests “end up trumping the common good” – which is of course exactly what is behind the rescission of the Endangerment Finding.

Pope Francis provides essential and lasting inspiration for this troubling time – we need a shift which involves developed world nations collaborating to reduce greenhouse gas to aid other nations as opposed to taking steps to endanger them.

Last, UNEP’s 2025 Emissions Gap Report 2025 warns us that we are likely to exceed the 1.5°C mark soon, and that pursuing efforts to stay below that level remains central.

It adds that “The Paris Agreement does not set a target date or expiration for its temperature goal. It is widely understood as a legal, moral and political obligation, as affirmed by the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice affirming that 1.5°C remains the “primary” target of the Paris Agreement.

In the wake of the EPA’s rescission of the Endangerment Finding, it strikes me that this is exactly the mindset we should be focused on going forward:  the legal, moral, and political obligation that we have to reduce emissions that drive global warming – emissions that, as the current U.S. EPA needs to be reminded, negatively impact all nations.

The key takeaway from the EPA’s Endangerment Finding rescission is this: The science hasn’t changed.  But our obligation to act on it is greater than ever.