This column first appeared at LancasterOnline.com on March 21, 2026--
In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued what became known as the “endangerment finding,” concluding that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act.
That determination was not symbolic. It rested on decades of scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and related gases alter the Earth’s energy balance in measurable ways.
Rescinding the finding was not a routine regulatory revision. It was a decision to step away from acknowledging a well-established physical risk.
And yet that’s what President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency did in February.
It also “revoked all greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks, even as transportation remains the nation’s largest source of emissions,” as a Yale School of the Environment publication noted.
A coalition of medical and environmental groups — including the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental Defense Fund — has filed a lawsuit challenging the rescission of the endangerment finding.
On Thursday, Pennsylvania and other Democratic-led states, counties and cities filed a separate legal challenge to the EPA rollback.
The Trump administration “is once again throwing science out the window and putting Pennsylvanians’ lives at risk,” Gov. Josh Shapiro said in a news release. [Read more here]
Let’s hope the legal challenges prevail, because the stakes couldn’t be higher.
The warming planet
The greenhouse effect was first quantified in the 19th century by scientists who calculated that increasing carbon dioxide would warm the planet.
Some degree of natural greenhouse effect is essential to life on this planet, keeping the Earth’s surface at a habitable temperature, but not too much.
Since the late 1800s, however, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen because of fossil fuel combustion. Methane concentrations have more than doubled, and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
As a result, our planet has warmed by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit.
The oceans have absorbed most of the excess heat, contributing to sea-level rise and shifts in ocean circulation. Heat waves have intensified. Heavy rainfall events have become more frequent in many regions.
These are not suppositions or projections; they are observations that do not bode well for our planet if left unchecked — or unregulated.
Lancaster County is not insulated from these trends.
Agriculture here depends on relatively stable growing seasons and manageable precipitation patterns.
More intense downpours separated by longer dry periods complicate planting and harvesting schedules. Warmer winters influence pest survival and crop stress.
Flooding along the Susquehanna River strains infrastructure and emergency services. Higher temperatures increase heat stress for outdoor workers and raise ground-level ozone formation, affecting respiratory health.
These are precisely the kinds of public health and welfare concerns the endangerment finding was meant to address.
‘Risk multiplier’
Some argue that these risks are overstated or that regulating emissions imposes unacceptable economic costs. Both claims deserve scrutiny.
The scientific consensus is not manufactured. It reflects decades of independent research across atmospheric physics, chemistry, oceanography and paleoclimate science.
Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe has described climate change as a “risk multiplier” that intensifies existing vulnerabilities in food systems, water resources, health and infrastructure.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and virtually every major scientific organization worldwide affirm that continued accumulation of greenhouse gases increases the likelihood of severe impacts.
If anything, the scientific consensus has been shown to be too conservative: Sea level is rising faster than anticipated; polar ice and alpine glaciers are more rapidly receding; permafrost is melting quicker; precipitation events are becoming more extreme; and droughts are more frequent and longer-lasting than expected.
Value of stewardship
One may legitimately debate policy tools — market incentives versus regulation, carbon pricing versus performance standards.
But repealing the endangerment finding does not revise the physics. It simply avoids a legal acknowledgment of the hazard.
Economic arguments also deserve context.
Renewable energy costs have fallen dramatically over the past decade. Solar and wind power are becoming cost-competitive in many regions.
Electric vehicles are mainstream products, not experimental curiosities. Energy efficiency reduces operating costs for businesses and households alike.
American innovation has repeatedly adapted to environmental standards in the past. Catalytic converters and emissions controls did not cripple the auto industry; instead, they modernized it and kept it competitive in the global marketplace.
The broader question is whether short-term regulatory relief outweighs long-term systemic risk.
Air pollution carries health costs. Climate-driven disasters carry infrastructure and insurance costs.
These costs do not disappear by deregulating the fossil fuel industry.
Communities — you and I — absorb them through taxes, insurance premiums and medical bills while the fossil fuel industry continues to thrive at our expense.
Lancaster County has long understood stewardship. Farming communities operate on intergenerational timelines.
Soil health, water management and land conservation are not abstract concepts here.
Many local businesses invest in energy efficiency and sustainability because long-term viability demands it.
Recognizing risk imposed by greenhouse gases is consistent with that ethic.
Ignoring the risk is not prudence; it is postponement.
Question of competition
For years, public and private sectors alike have moved toward cleaner energy systems. Utilities have diversified generation portfolios.
Companies have invested in electrification and efficiency. Students have trained for careers in renewable energy and environmental engineering.
The repeal of the endangerment finding introduces uncertainty into that trajectory.
There is also a competitive dimension that deserves attention.
While the United States debates whether greenhouse gases endanger public welfare, other major economies are acting on the assumption that they do.
China, once emblematic of severe urban smog, has implemented aggressive air-quality controls over the past decade.
And China now dominates the world in the manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles.
It also has invested heavily in high-speed rail infrastructure. These developments are strategic investments aligned with technological and industrial leadership.
Across the European Union, renewable energy now supplies a growing share of electricity.
The strategic implication for the United States is clear.
If other nations align industrial policy with climate change while we retreat from acknowledging that science in our regulatory framework, the risk is not only environmental, it is economic.
Advanced manufacturing, clean-energy supply chains and technological expertise will concentrate where policy signals are consistent and long-term investment appears secure.
Lancaster County businesses participate in global supply chains. Local manufacturers depend on export markets and stable input costs.
Regulatory disengagement may feel like relief in the short term, but it can also signal uncertainty to investors and innovators.
This is not an argument for blind imitation of other countries’ policies. It is an argument for realism.
Recognizing risk
The atmosphere cares little about regulatory posture.
Carbon dioxide accumulates based on emissions, not legislative language. Methane absorbs infrared radiation regardless of political preference.
Ocean heat content increases according to thermodynamics, not policy debates.
Greenhouse gases do not respect national borders. Neither do markets for emerging technologies.
Repealing the endangerment finding does not alter the physics. It merely alters our institutional response to it.
Recognizing risk is standard practice in fields from engineering to insurance.
When insurers adjust premiums based on rising disaster losses, they are not engaging in ideology — they are pricing observed trends.
When communities elevate flood infrastructure, they are responding to empirical data.
When public health officials warn of heat stress or expanding disease vectors, they are interpreting evidence.
The central issue is not whether the climate is changing; it is how governance responds to that change and the Trump administration is certainly not responding in the best interest of you and me.
Shared inheritance
Climate models have been tested against historical data and refined accordingly.
Uncertainty remains about specific regional outcomes and precise timelines — that is inherent in complex systems.
But uncertainty about magnitude does not negate certainty about direction.
What, then, is being repealed?
Certainly not the measured rise in atmospheric concentrations.
What is being repealed is the social contract for sustaining our health in favor of laissez-faire capitalism, greed and power.
Lancaster County residents are practical. They maintain farms, manage budgets and plan for the future.
If a barn develops structural weakness, the solution is reinforcement, not denial of load-bearing physics.
Climate risk operates on longer timescales but follows the same principle.
There is room for debate about how best to reduce emissions while preserving economic vitality.
There is room for disagreement about policy design.
But stepping away from recognizing the underlying hazard narrows that debate rather than strengthens it.
Other nations are modernizing their energy systems, improving air quality and positioning themselves for the next generation of industrial growth.
The United States has historically led in scientific innovation and technological advancement. Aligning policy with well-established physical evidence has been one of our strengths.
The repeal of the endangerment finding may reduce regulatory burdens in the immediate term. It may satisfy a particular political constituency.
But it does not change the physics and chemistry that govern the processes that lead to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and global warming.
It does not remove climate-related risks to agriculture, infrastructure or public health; it will instead exacerbate the problem in the long term.
The atmosphere remains part of our shared inheritance.
Decisions about how we respond to its changing composition will shape economic resilience and environmental stability for decades.
The scientific foundation is clear. The policy path remains a matter of choice.
By repealing the endangerment finding, we are most certainly making the wrong choice and incentivizing those who helped create the pollution problem and care least about its consequences on you and me.
Click Here for the guest essay.
Richard D. Clark is professor of atmospheric science emeritus at Millersville University. He is a member of the board of Lancaster County's Partnership for Public Health and a vice president of the board of the North Museum of Nature and Science.
PA Oil & Gas Industry Public Notice Dashboards:
-- Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Weekly Compliance Dashboard- March 14 to 20 [PaEN]
-- PA Oil & Gas Industrial Facilities: Permit Notices, Opportunities To Comment - March 21 [PaEN]
-- DEP Invites Comments On Chapter 105 Permit For 5-Mile Long Expand Operating LLC Water Pipeline To Support Shale Gas Development In Auburn Twp., Susquehanna County [PaEN]
-- DEP Issued Chapter 105 Permit For Homer City Generation LP A.I. Data Center Campus Natural Gas Power Plant Site In Indiana County [PaEN]
-- Susquehanna River Basin Commission Approved 22 Shale Gas Well Pad Water Use General Permits In February; 54 In 2026 [PaEN]
-- DEP Posted 64 Pages Of Permit-Related Notices In March 21 PA Bulletin [PaEN]
-- DEP Invites Comments On A Chapter 105 Permit For The Limerick 67 MW PECO Energy Transmission Line Crossing The Schuylkill River In Chester, Montgomery Counties [PaEN]
Related Articles This Week:
-- Gov. Shapiro Joins Other States In Lawsuit Against EPA Over Repeal Of 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding [PaEN]
-- Penn State Extension Holds April 29 Webinar On How Climate Change Is Impacting Seasonal Events In Nature - Migration, Bud Break, Fall Leaf Color, Human Activities Tied To Seasonal Cycles [PaEN]
-- DEP To Tighten Residual Waste Coproduct Regulations That Allow Unrestricted Disposal Of Conventional Oil & Gas Wastewater By Dumping It On Public Roads [PaEN]
-- The Allegheny Front: Allegheny County Health Dept. To Make Recommendations On How To Better Protect Residents From Health Impacts Of Shale Gas Development [PaEN]
-- The Allegheny Front: DEP Proposes Shell Petrochemical Plant Air Permit With Higher Emission Limits In Beaver County [PaEN]
-- PA House Committee Hears How Virtual Power Plants, Advanced Transmission Line Technologies Allow Us To Quickly Get More Out Of Our Energy Infrastructure In Less Time, Without Huge Investments Or Delays [PaEN]
-- PennFuture Calls For A Statewide Pause On A.I. Data Center Development Until Lawmakers Can Adopt Strict Policies To Site These Facilities Properly [PaEN]
-- DEP Invests $10 Million To Support 6 Projects To Improve Electric Grid Reliability And Resiliency In 9 Counties [PaEN]
-- Mon Valley Initiative, PA Solar Center Announce RFP For Qualified Solar Developers [PaEN]
-- Green Building Alliance To Hold Free Virtual Green Professional Operations & Maintenance Certification Training For PreK-12 School Facilities Teams April 29 – May 1; Technical Assistance Available [PaEN]
-- Physicians For Social Responsibility-PA Establishes Scientific Advisory Board To Advise The Group On Scientific Issues [PaEN]
-- PUC: Deadly West Reading Chocolate Factory Explosion Prompts PUC Safety Complaint Against UGI Proposing $2,576,627 In Penalties [PaEN]
-- PUC Schedules 10 Hearings On Proposed UGI Utilities 8.05% Natural Gas Distribution Rate Increase Starting March 30 [PaEN]
-- PUC Sets Hearings On Proposed National Fuel Gas 7.4% Natural Gas Distribution Rate Increase Starting March 31 [PaEN]
-- DCED Invests $1.4 Million To Expand Natural Gas Service To Customers In Bradford, Somerset County [PaEN]
-- PA Senate Republicans Pass Bill To Protect The Right Of Pennsylvanians To Drive Diesel And Gasoline Powered Vehicles; Average PA Price Of Gasoline Rose 69 Cents To $3.80/Gallon Since Feb. 27 [PaEN]
NewsClips:
-- Post-Gazette: President’s Spokesperson Announces $17 Billion South Mon Natural Gas Power Plant To Produce 4.3 GW Of Power In SW PA [No Details Available, Fetterman, McCormick Have No Information]
-- WPXI: Beaver County Shell Petrochemical Plant Seeking Air Quality Permit, Residents Express Concerns
-- WTAE: Shell Petrochemical Plant Wastewater Treatment Plan Raises Environmental Concerns In Beaver County
-- CapitolWire: Pennsylvania Scraps RGGI Carbon Market, Races To Build More Natural Gas Power Plants [For A.I. Data Centers]
-- WESA - Rachel McDevitt: Taylor Allderdice High School Students In Pittsburgh Are Raising $5,000 To Fund A Well Done Foundation Project To Plug A Conventional Oil & Gas Well To Reduce Methane Emissions
-- PA Capital-Star: Pain Of Soaring Gasoline, Diesel, Heating Oil, Propane Prices Compounded By Electricity, Natural Gas Increases Across Pennsylvania
-- PUC Schedules 10 Hearings On Proposed UGI Utilities 8.05% Natural Gas Distribution Rate Increase Starting March 30 [PaEN]
-- PUC Sets Hearings On Proposed National Fuel Gas 7.4% Natural Gas Distribution Rate Increase Starting March 31 [PaEN]
-- Scranton Times: PPL Utilities: A.I. Data Centers Are Poised To Consume More Electricity Than Northeast PA Can Deliver [PDF of Article]
-- Bloomberg: Attacks On Qatar LNG Natural Gas Facilities Make Worst Nightmare A Reality Leaving Buyers Scrambling For Supplies [American Customers Must Now Compete For Their Own US Gas As Prices Spike]
-- Bloomberg: Oil And Natural Gas Prices Jump As Strikes On Gulf Facilities Escalate Threatening Long-Term Damage
-- Food & Water Watch Blog: President’s War Against Iran Exposes The Lie Of How ‘Energy Independence’ Based On Oil & Natural Gas Will Lower Prices For Consumers - Prices Are Unbreakably Linked To International Markets As War Price Spikes Again Show
-- Inside Climate News: Iran War Shows That Doubling Down On Oil/Natural Gas Is ‘Delusional,’ UN Climate Chief Says
[Posted: March 21, 2026 ] PA Environment Digest
No comments:
Post a Comment