Michael Barbaro

So now this administration, the Trump administration, is looking at that finding, and they're saying the science that you used is something we don't agree with, and they're saying the legal rationale is problematic.

So start with the science.

Why do they dispute the science, and is it compelling?

So they have made the case that the predictions that were made about the impacts of climate change back in 2009 were too pessimistic.

Their evidence to support that claim is

is a report that five hand-picked climate contrarians wrote in secret for the Department of Energy last year.

It was designed to support the repeal of the endangerment finding, and no surprise to anyone, the conclusion was that climate change threats have been overblown.

And what multitudes of scientists have told us are two things.

Yeah, the planet is better off than what was predicted in 2009 because the international community has acted, not enough, not fast enough, but has done work towards reducing emissions.

But what's also true is that every bit of emissions that enters the atmosphere leads to more warming, which leads to more health impacts,

and all of the things that we know continue to endanger human health and the environment.

Scientists say that that research is even more ironclad today than it was in 2009.

Then there's the Trump administration's legal arguments for repealing the endangerment finding.

There's a couple.

Take a step back.

The endangerment finding, that flowed from a law, the 1970 Clean Air Act.

This EPA is arguing that the Clean Air Act

only allows EPA to regulate what it calls local and regional pollutants.

Things like soot from industrial sources, factories, power plants, stuff that's really bad when you breathe it in.

Greenhouse gas emissions don't work that way.