OUR DAILY THREAD: The EPA's Self-Destruct Button
Baby, you can't drive those cars
THE SET-UP: After flying under the radar for most of Trump’s first year, the EPA’s deconstruction of its mandate finally making news.
The week started with a New York Times report on the agency’s plan to:
…stop tallying gains from the health benefits caused by curbing two of the most widespread deadly air pollutants, fine particulate matter and ozone, when regulating industry, according to internal agency emails and documents reviewed by The New York Times.
That report spawned a host of angry comments and biting commentary on the EPA’s apparent abandonment of its core mission “to protect human health and the environment.” It also struck a nerve with Zeldin. He took to X twice to refute it, writing:
The Times is already VERY WELL AWARE that EPA will still be considering lives saved when setting pollution limits.”
and
“Cute BS headline.”
An EPA spokesperson also responded:
"Not monetizing DOES NOT equal not considering or not valuing the human health impact. EPA is fully committed to its core mission of protect human health and the environment by relying on gold standard science, not the approval of so-called environmental groups that are funded by far-left activists."
Over the last year, phrases like “gold standard science” and “far-left activists” tend to indicate a desperate need to redirect or gaslight. The beauty of the EPA’s position is that they can say they pondered the impact of pollution on human health, but now that a tangible metric like dollar amounts is off the table, how will anyone know if they actually took health impacts into account?
Frankly, it looks like Zeldin and Co. were caught off-guard by the response and tried to walk it back a bit. One thing they haven’t felt compelled to walk back, though, is Grist’s reporting on a suicidal approach to deregulation of the Clean Air Act that “amounts to a backdoor repeal of the EPA itself.” If the proposed changes “hold up in court”:
The agency would still have funding and staff, experts say, but it would no longer be able to perform its mission of protecting what the Clean Air Act calls “public health and welfare.”
And what are those changes?
The agency is pairing its proposed repeal of the 2009 “endangerment finding” with a repeal of its rules limiting carbon pollution from gas cars. Its rule proposing these repeals makes two distinct arguments against past regulations on tailpipe carbon. The first is that the EPA lacks the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide, because global warming is a worldwide issue, not a “local and regional” one like soot.
The second echoes Trump’s criticism of strict Biden-era tailpipe rules. Biden’s regulations would have spurred a faster transition to electric vehicles, but Trump has claimed they amounted to a ban on internal combustion cars. The proposed rule argues that that “no technology … is capable of preventing or controlling” carbon emissions from cars except for “a complete change from internal combustion engines to EVs.” It also claims that regulating the pollutant often “requires manufacturers to design and install new and more expensive technologies, thereby increasing the price of new vehicles” and hurting consumers. (It adds that “the ability to own a vehicle is an important means to unlock economic freedom and participate in society.”)
To underscore that last point, Zeldin is joining forces with former FOX News infotainer and current Transportation Sec’y Sean Duffy and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the “Freedom Means Affordable Cars Tour.” The press release touts a “two-day swing” to:
…highlight the work the Trump Administration is doing to lower car prices for American families, unleash American auto manufacturing, and increase consumer choice.
Of course, Trump’s made a point of limiting consumer choice by sabotaging EVs. And it’s been effective, too. As the Financial Times just noted in a report on Trump’s finger-forward visit to Ford:
The carmaker last month took a $19.5bn writedown as it scrapped production of its flagship F-150 all-electric pick-up truck after Trump’s crackdown on the green initiatives championed by his predecessor, Joe Biden.
An end-of-year wrap-up report by NPR last December added to the list of casualties from Trump’s war on “consumer choice”:
The all-electric Ram 1500 REV was canceled before a single one was built.
The buzzy Volkswagen Buzz is still available in other countries, but no longer in the U.S.
The GM Brightdrop van is no more.
And, the report says, “The list goes on.”
It also pointed out a surprising to a “twist” to the story:
“Among U.S. shoppers who are in [the] market for new vehicles, the interest in electric vehicles actually ticked up a bit after the tax credit went away,” says Brent Gruber, who runs the EV practice at consumer insights company J.D. Power.
Despite Trump, “consumer appetite for EVs has been on a very smooth ride”:
Overall, about 25% of new car shoppers are very interested in buying an EV, according to J.D. Power surveys. And with minor fluctuations, “it’s held pretty consistent,” Gruber says, despite what he calls the “turbulence” of this year.
Okay, Mr. Gruber … but aren’t they just virtue signaling after years of being shamed by “left-wing radical lunatics” who believe in the “Chinese hoax” called climate change?
“There’s still a tremendous amount of interest,” he says. “And from an EV owner perspective, we continue to see high levels of satisfaction once people do get into those products.” In fact, EV owners are 94% likely to repurchase another EV for their next vehicle, he says.
Maybe, then, the regime’s attack on the climate-spurred “endangerment finding” is NOT about “consumer choice”?
And if not, what could it be?
Back to you, Grist:
If courts don’t strike it down, Trump’s repeal could hamstring climate regulations for years to come. Should a court rule that the EPA has no authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a future president would have to formulate a new endangerment finding, which could take years to go through the regulatory process, or else would have to secure explicit approval from Congress. Unless Congress acted, the EPA would not be able to set any limits on greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes, which make up a quarter of the U.S.’s contribution to global warming.
Given all that, one might get the impression Trump wants the world to get warmer. At the very least, EVs are a threat to all that oil he’s pilfering from Venezuela. The price of oil per barrel is already hovering around the breakeven price … and that’s without Venezuela’s much-touted reserves flooding a saturated market. For example, OilPrice.com puts the “breakevens” for shale near $60 per barrel and at least $58 per barrel for anyone drilling a well. That convinced “oil tycoon and wildcatter Harold Hamm” to cease “drilling operations in North Dakota for the first time in decades.” The “billionaire oil magnate and Trump donor” told Bloomberg: “There’s no need to drill it when margins are basically gone.”
That presents a challenge for John Addison. He’s “a senior trader at Vitol who donated about $6mn to political action committees backing Trump’s re-election campaign.” As FT explained in a separate report, his company somehow managed to score “the first US sale of Venezuelan crude”!
Go figure.
Taking a page from the paeans Trump's Cabinet lavishes on him during those interminably long, pointedly televised meetings, Addison “pledged to Trump” that:
Vitol would get the best price possible for Venezuelan oil for the US, “so that the influence you have over the Venezuelans will ensure that you get what you want”.
If Trump gets what he wants—reportedly a goal of oil at $50 per barrel—a lot of drillers won’t be drilling, baby, drilling. What Trump, his oily megadonors and the Saudi actually need more than more Venezuelan oil is more demand. Trump can torpedo EVs, attempt to scuttle windfarms and block the importation of solar panels, but Europe and China are still accelerating their transitions like a self-driving Tesla honing-in on a pedestrian:
While the overall new car market saw a slight decline of 1.9 percent in the EU during the first half of 2025 (to 5.58 million vehicles), the increasing adoption of battery-electric, hybrid-electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles signals a decisive shift away from traditional petrol and diesel cars. This rapid electrification in Europe positions the continent as a global leader in EV adoption, second only to China.
And now, Reuters reports, Canada is gearing-up to join them:
Canada and China struck an initial trade deal on Friday that will slash tariffs on electric vehicles and canola, as both nations promised to tear down trade barriers while forging new strategic ties during Prime Minister Mark Carney’s visit.
Canada will initially allow in up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles at a tariff of 6.1% on most-favoured-nation terms, Carney said after talks with Chinese leaders including President Xi Jinping.
That compares with the 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles imposed under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2024, following similar U.S. penalties. In 2023, China exported 41,678 EVs to Canada.
“This is a return to levels prior to recent trade frictions, but under an agreement that promises much more for Canadians,” Carney told reporters. He later said the quota would gradually increase, reaching about 70,000 vehicles in five years.
Those numbers may not be game-changing, but Canadians keen on buying an EV might’ve bought a Ford F-150 or GM Brightdrop if Trump wasn’t so keen on killing off American-made alternatives to China’s world-leading vehicles. And although Trump “shrugged-off” the announced deal during an early morning press spray:
“That’s OK. That’s what he should be doing. It’s a good thing for him to sign a trade deal. If you can get a deal with China, you should do that,” Trump said, when asked about the agreement announced earlier in the day.
…Transportation Sec’y Duffy wasn’t so forgiving…
“I think they’ll look back at this decision and surely regret it to bring Chinese cars into their market,” US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Friday at an event with other government officials at a Ford factory in Ohio to tout efforts to make vehicles more affordable.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer echoed his two-day tour-mate’s comments, saying Canada may come to regret it “in the long run.” For now, though, Canadian Prime Minister Carney isn’t buying it:
“We’re building a new part of our car industry, building cars of the future in partnership, bringing affordable autos for Canadians at a time when affordability is top of mind, and doing it at a scale that allows for a smooth transition in the sector,” Carney said.
Frankly, if “affordability” is what Duffy, Greer and Zeldin are advocating, it may be the US that ultimately regrets giving Trump the wheel when Uncle Sam gets further down the road and finds the world driving China’s significantly cheaper alternatives:
Yeah, it seems like a hard sell for Americans addicted to SUVs and “full-size” trucks that have ballooned to semi-truck proportions over the last decade. But the same was true when the first Japanese cars starting washing up on US shores in the 70s. The original Honda Civic looked like a toy next to the Buicks of the day. More to the point, the smaller, cheaper alternatives ultimately forced Detroit to compete and adapt.
Unless Trump plans on subsidizing the purchase of American cars that currently average over $50,000, a little competition from cheaper alternatives is the only thing that’ll drive prices down. But Trump’s crusade against clean, green and renewable energy has put the US market in a corner while China’s cornering the market where the rest of the world increasingly does its shopping. - jp
E.P.A. to Stop Considering Lives Saved When Setting Rules on Air Pollution
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/climate/trump-epa-air-pollution.html
EPA denies reports it will no longer consider harm to humans in pollution regulation: ‘BS headline’
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5687549-epa-pollution-public-health/
EPA rejects Colorado haze plan over coal plant closures https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/epa-rejects-colorado-haze-plan-over-coal-plant-closures/
E.P.A. Moves to Limit States’ Ability to Block Pipelines
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/climate/trump-clean-water-act-states.html