How should we view The New York Times report that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will declare greenhouse gas emissions harmless to humans and lift all emission restrictions on vehicles, power plants, and other industries?

Not only did The New York Times report this, but The Washington Post did as well. In short, the U.S. has effectively abandoned all environmental protection and emissions-reduction efforts. This time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not merely relaxing greenhouse gas emission limits—it intends to completely overturn its 2009 'Endangerment Finding.' That finding officially recognized several greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide and methane—as air pollutants, thereby establishing the legal foundation for regulating and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Once overturned, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would be deemed legally and politically harmless to humans, freeing all U.S. industries from any legal constraints on emissions—thus lowering U.S. energy costs. As for scientific accuracy? Americans won’t concern themselves with that. This decision isn’t based on new scientific evidence, but solely on political and economic considerations of the Trump administration. 'After 16 years, EPA will formally reconsider the Endangerment Finding,' Zeldin stated at the time. 'The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas.'

If the U.S. declares greenhouse gases harmless, what impacts will this have on the environment and public health?

A globally iconic moment has arrived: Americans declaring greenhouse gases harmless to humans—public intellectuals’ faces are being rubbed hard into the ground! Just these past few days, The New York Times and The Washington Post broke a major story: the U.S. EPA plans to declare greenhouse gas emissions harmless to humans and eliminate all emission restrictions on vehicles, power plants, and other industries. Moreover, U.S. officials openly claim that restricting emissions—not emissions themselves—is what truly harms human health. News of this announcement sent shockwaves across the globe. What stunned people wasn’t the conclusion itself: after all, scientific consensus on how much greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming remains contested. Whether emissions significantly affect warming—or not—is a specialized academic question; ordinary citizens can hardly judge it. What truly shocked everyone was the West’s shifting stance on emissions reduction. From the late 1990s through the early 2000s, Western countries repeatedly amplified alarmist narratives about global warming, essentially arguing that if countries like China failed to rapidly curb their industrial output, it would spell catastrophic disaster for the entire planet. Accordingly, in 1992, 1997, and 2016, Western nations spearheaded adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement—calling on all nations to cut emissions and jointly combat global warming. Naturally, industrial powerhouses like China were primary targets of such pressure. During that era, domestic public intellectuals flourished in China, constantly criticizing China for refusing to adopt Western environmental initiatives. The most prominent among them was Chai Jing. She gained nationwide fame for two major actions: First, she interviewed Academician Ding Zhongli. During the interview, Chai Jing explicitly voiced her skepticism, asking why China refused to accept Western emissions-reduction proposals. Academician Ding Zhongli replied: Because Western environmental policies are a complete sham. Over the past century, Western countries emitted 7.5 times more carbon than China did. Back then, they never called for emissions cuts or Earth protection. Now that their own industrialization is complete—and their polluting industries relocated overseas—they loudly champion environmentalism to ‘save the planet.’ Where’s the logic in that? This is precisely the ‘equal distribution of guilt’ fallacy: ‘You get to indulge in luxury—but when global warming hits, I’m to blame!’ After hearing this, Chai Jing responded: ‘So you’re questioning UN resolutions?’ Academician Ding Zhongli patiently explained further: ‘Developed Western countries have 1.1 billion people; the entire Earth has nearly 7 billion (at that time)...’

EPA to Undo Carbon Emission Limits for Power Plants at G20 Meeting

Sep 14, 2026

The U.S. EPA will announce the repeal of Biden-era carbon emission limits on coal and gas power plants during the G20 energy ministers' meeting in Houston. This regulatory shift aims to boost energy production despite concerns over increased greenhouse gas emissions.

reuters

2026-04-30

Record US Biofuel Targets to Test Biodiesel Industry After Slow Year

2026-07-24

HF Sinclair Sues EPA Over Biofuel Exemption Delays

2026-09-14

EPA to Undo Carbon Emission Limits for Power Plants at G20 Meeting

EPA to Undo Carbon Emission Limits for Power Plants at G20 Meeting

FAQ