‘Repeal of endangerment finding is part of a systematic effort by US to dismantle climate policy’

The US, the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, has overturned its “endangerment finding”, the legal foundation for regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act since 2009. In doing so, the US Environmental Protection Agency has repealed emission standards for vehicles and engines. It claims the move will save American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion, restore consumer choice, make vehicles more affordable for American families and reduce the cost of living by lowering trucking costs. Adopted after years of scientific assessment, the endangerment finding concluded that greenhouse gas pollution threatens human health and therefore warrants regulation. In an interview with Snigdha Das, Niklas Höhne, a climate policy expert and founder of the NewClimate Institute in Cologne, Germany, explains what the repeal means for the US and for global climate diplomacy.

Snigdha Das (SD): The repeal of the endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act removes the legal foundation for federal regulation of greenhouse gases in the US. Are you concerned?

Niklas Höhne (NH): Yes. But my concern is not limited to the repeal itself. The withdrawal of the endangerment finding is part of a broader and very systematic effort by the federal government under Donald Trump to dismantle climate policy in its entirety—an effort more comprehensive than anything seen before.

While the repeal strips away the legal basis for regulating carbon dioxide emissions at the federal level, the administration has already curtailed support, particularly financial backing, for renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery technology and so on. At the same time, it has expanded support for fossil fuels, issuing new drilling licences and encouraging oil, gas and coal exports. States pursuing more ambitious climate policies have faced federal resistance, even litigation. In one case, a wind farm that was 80 per cent complete lost its permit before a court restored it. The pattern is deliberate, not accidental: a strategy to dismantle climate policy while bolstering fossil fuels. That is what makes it troubling.

SD: Trump argues that the repeal of endangerment finding is about consumer benefit—that fossil fuels are the more economical choice.

NH: That claim deserves scrutiny. In many parts of the US, renewables are already cheaper. Consider Texas. It is adding wind and solar capacity faster than almost any other state because it makes economic sense. The notion that fossil fuels are automatically the “pro-consumer” option is outdated. Renewables do entail upfront investment and pose some challenges such as grid adjustments and storage. But in many circumstances they are the more economical option.

The energy prices in the US have not fallen, and there is little reason to think that the repeal of endangerment finding will reduce them. My understanding is the motive behind the repeal is not purely economic argument—but the belief that whoever controls energy and energy market, controls the world. That is exactly the reason the US wanted to control Venezuela.

SD: What it means for the US and for global emissions?

NH: Renewables are now cheap; fossil fuels are expensive. That holds true in the US as well. So, by curtailing support for renewables and bolstering fossil fuels, the Trump administration would be pushing against market forces. But one can defy markets only for so long. This means the energy transition will continue and emissions will keep falling, even in the US. They will, however, fall more slowly.

Our calculations show that by the end of 2030, US’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, under the new policies of the Trump administration, would be roughly one gigatonne higher than under the trajectory associated with Joe Biden. A gigatonne of GHG emission is no small amount—it is more than Germany emits in a year.

There would be international repercussions, too. As domestic demand for costly fossil fuels weakens even as production rises, exports will grow. American liquefied natural gas is already being marketed aggressively in Europe and Asia, with countries pressed to take additional supplies. The effects could be significant.

Meanwhile, the US’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would weaken collective resolve. When one of the largest emitters steps back from international climate negotiations, others find cover to do nothing or delay climate action. 

SD: More than a dozen health and environmental groups have challenged the repeal in court. If they fail, what then?

NH: The Trump administration has often done things that are outside of what is allowed under the law. That is why the courts matter. In the wind-farm case I mentioned, judges restored the permit. We must wait and see how these cases against US Environmental Protection Agency unfold. Yes, litigation takes time and creates uncertainty, which can chill investment in renewables. But it also demonstrates that institutional checks remain.

Moreover, regardless of federal government’s course, roughly half of the states in the US continue to pursue climate policies; they are committed to renewable energy and want to move forward. California is the most prominent example. Together these states account for a half of the GDP of the US. So the story is not simply that the US is “out” of climate action; it is divided. Elections matter, too. Policy may yet change again.

The fossil-fuel path may benefit certain incumbents in the short term. But for society as a whole, the long-term advantages of renewables—lower operating costs, energy security, technological innovation—are compelling.

SD: What strategic choice do countries face in the current geopolitical reality?

NH: Every country now faces a choice: double down on a fossil-fuel system that is volatile and import-dependent, or accelerate a shift to renewables, which in the long run are cheaper and domestically produced. Examine the economics carefully and over the long term. Countries such as India and members of the European Union import large quantities of fossil fuels. That represents a sustained outflow of capital. Domestic renewable generation, by contrast, keeps investment and jobs at home and can foster export industries—solar-module manufacturing, for example. Indian producers of photovoltaic modules, for instance, can aspire to compete in global markets. That is an investment in innovation and the future.

Climate negotiations now require new alliances, and the present moment offers an opportunity. One promising alliance would bring together countries dependent on fossil-fuel imports, which share an interest in accelerating the transition and reducing their exposure to volatile suppliers. Deeper co-operation between India and the EU on technology, finance and supply chains, for example, would be mutually beneficial. By working together, both could accelerate the transition to clean energy and lessen their dependence on imported fossil fuels.

This was first published in the 1-15 March, 2026 print edition of Down To Earth