The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially moved to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a cornerstone scientific determination that established greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. This administrative action, announced under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, represents a fundamental shift in the federal government’s legal obligation to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions. In response to the decision, the climate advocacy group Protect Our Winters (POW) has issued a formal demand for Administrator Zeldin’s immediate resignation, citing a dereliction of the agency’s core mission to protect the environment and human health.
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is not merely a policy adjustment but a dismantling of the legal framework that has underpinned nearly every federal climate regulation for the past 15 years. By rescinding this finding, the EPA effectively abdicates its authority—and its duty—to limit pollution from power plants, vehicles, and industrial facilities under the Clean Air Act. The move comes at a time when the American West is grappling with a severe "snow drought" and record-breaking winter temperatures, highlighting the growing disconnect between federal policy and observed environmental conditions.
The Legal and Scientific Significance of the Endangerment Finding
To understand the magnitude of the EPA’s recent action, it is necessary to examine the history of the Endangerment Finding. In 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases fit the definition of air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Court mandated that the EPA determine whether these emissions endangered public health or welfare. Following an exhaustive review of peer-reviewed science, the EPA issued the Endangerment Finding in December 2009.
This finding served as the "trigger" for the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Without it, the EPA lacks the legal justification to enforce limits on carbon pollution. The 2009 document concluded that the atmospheric concentrations of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The evidence cited included increased frequency of extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and the spread of climate-sensitive diseases.
By repealing this finding, the current administration is challenging decades of established climate science. This move is expected to trigger a wave of litigation from state attorneys general and environmental organizations, who argue that the repeal ignores the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of administrative law by disregarding the vast body of scientific evidence compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Climate Assessment.
Protect Our Winters and the Demand for Resignation
Protect Our Winters, an organization representing professional athletes, scientists, and business leaders within the outdoor recreation industry, has positioned itself at the forefront of the opposition. The group argues that under Administrator Zeldin, the EPA has transitioned from a regulatory watchdog into an entity that facilitates the interests of the fossil fuel industry.
In a statement released shortly after the EPA’s announcement, POW characterized the repeal as a "dangerous new low" and an "existential threat" to the $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy. The organization’s call for Zeldin’s resignation is based on the premise that the agency is now actively working against its founding purpose. According to POW, the EPA’s current trajectory prioritizes short-term industrial deregulation over the long-term stability of the American environment and economy.
"An EPA that ignores science and dismantles the tools designed to protect public health and the environment cannot fulfill its mission," the organization stated. The group emphasized that the 181 million Americans who participate in outdoor recreation depend on clean air, clean water, and stable winters—all of which are compromised by the removal of federal climate protections.
The 2025 Snow Drought and Its Economic Context
The timing of the EPA’s decision coincides with a period of significant climatic stress in the American West. Scientific measurements from SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) sites and satellite data indicate that winter snowpack levels across the Rocky Mountains, the Sierra Nevada, and the Cascade Range are at historically low levels for the 2024–2025 season.
This "snow drought" is primarily driven by temperature anomalies rather than a simple lack of precipitation. Unusually warm atmospheric conditions have caused a higher percentage of precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow, even at higher elevations. This phenomenon has immediate and cascading effects:
- Water Scarcity: Mountain snowpack serves as a natural reservoir, storing water during the winter and releasing it slowly during the spring and summer. A thin snowpack leads to reduced streamflow, tightening water supplies for agriculture and municipal use.
- Hydropower Declines: Reduced runoff limits the capacity of hydroelectric dams, which are a critical source of carbon-free energy in the Pacific Northwest and California.
- Wildfire Risk: Early snowmelt leads to drier soils and vegetation earlier in the season, significantly lengthening the window for catastrophic wildfires.
- Economic Loss: The outdoor recreation sector, particularly the ski and winter tourism industries, faces direct financial losses. Rural communities that rely on "the Outdoor State" see a decline in consumer spending, employment, and tax revenue.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the outdoor recreation economy accounts for 2.2% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The repeal of the Endangerment Finding, by accelerating the warming trends that cause snow droughts, is viewed by industry experts as a direct threat to this significant portion of the national economy.
Chronology of EPA Actions Since January 2025
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is the culmination of a rapid series of deregulatory actions taken by the EPA since the beginning of the year. Upon taking office in January 2025, Administrator Zeldin signaled a departure from the previous administration’s climate goals, focusing instead on "energy dominance" and the reduction of "regulatory burdens" on the energy sector.
- January 15, 2025: The EPA announced a pause on the implementation of stricter tailpipe emission standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles, citing a need to "review the technical feasibility" of the targets.
- February 4, 2025: The agency proposed a revision to the Methane Emissions Reduction Program, aiming to lower the fees associated with methane leaks from oil and gas infrastructure.
- February 20, 2025: Administrator Zeldin issued a memorandum prioritizing "economic impact assessments" over "environmental benefit modeling" in the agency’s rulemaking process.
- March 12, 2025: The formal announcement of the repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding was made, effectively stalling the EPA’s ability to defend existing carbon regulations in court.
This timeline reflects a coordinated effort to reverse the "Whole-of-Government" approach to climate change that had been the standard in previous years. Critics argue these actions represent a systematic unraveling of environmental safeguards that will take decades to rebuild.
Industry and Political Reactions
The EPA’s decision has drawn a sharp divide between industry stakeholders and environmental advocates. Groups representing the fossil fuel and manufacturing sectors have largely praised the move, arguing that the Endangerment Finding was a "regulatory overreach" that increased energy costs and hampered American competitiveness.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) and other trade groups have long argued that the Clean Air Act was never intended by Congress to regulate greenhouse gases and that such authority should rest with legislative action rather than executive rule-making. Supporters of Administrator Zeldin contend that the repeal provides much-needed regulatory certainty for businesses and will lead to lower energy prices for consumers.
Conversely, members of the scientific community have expressed alarm. Dr. Sarah Robbins, a member of the POW Creative Alliance and a climate researcher, noted that the data supporting the original 2009 finding has only become more robust over the last 15 years. "To repeal the finding now is to ignore the physical reality of our planet," Robbins said. "The data shows that we are moving toward more volatile weather patterns, and the federal government is choosing this exact moment to look away."
On Capitol Hill, the reaction has followed predictable partisan lines. Republican lawmakers have defended the EPA’s actions as a return to "common-sense regulation," while Democratic leaders have promised to use every legislative and legal tool available to challenge the repeal. Several state governors in the U.S. Climate Alliance have already announced their intention to implement stricter state-level standards to fill the vacuum left by the federal government.
Broader Implications and Long-Term Outlook
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding carries implications that extend far beyond the borders of the United States. As the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the U.S. federal policy significantly influences global climate efforts and international negotiations, such as those held under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Domestically, the immediate impact will be felt in the courtrooms. The repeal is certain to be challenged by a coalition of environmental groups and "blue" states. These legal battles will likely center on whether the EPA provided a reasoned explanation for changing its position—a requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act. If the courts find that the EPA ignored established science to reach a political conclusion, the repeal could be overturned.
However, the litigation process is slow. In the interim, the EPA is expected to continue its path of deregulation, potentially rolling back standards for power plant emissions and industrial pollution. For the "Outdoor State" and the communities currently facing the realities of a warming climate, the delay in regulation represents a permanent loss of environmental stability.
The call for Lee Zeldin’s resignation by Protect Our Winters highlights a growing movement of non-traditional climate advocates—business owners, athletes, and rural residents—who view climate policy not as a political debate, but as a matter of economic survival. As the EPA moves forward with its new agenda, the tension between administrative deregulation and the escalating physical impacts of climate change is set to become a defining conflict of 2025 and beyond.
