The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially moved to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a cornerstone of American environmental law that identifies greenhouse gases as a primary threat to public health and welfare. The decision, announced by Administrator Lee Zeldin, represents a fundamental shift in the federal government’s approach to climate change and the regulation of carbon emissions. In response to the move, the advocacy group Protect Our Winters (POW), representing a coalition of athletes, scientists, and business leaders within the outdoor recreation industry, has issued a formal demand for Administrator Zeldin’s immediate resignation. The group characterizes the repeal as a direct assault on the scientific integrity of the agency and an existential threat to the $1.2 trillion outdoor economy.
The Endangerment Finding serves as the legal and scientific bedrock for the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. By rescinding this determination, the EPA effectively removes the requirement for the federal government to mitigate the drivers of climate change, a move that legal experts suggest will trigger a wave of litigation and significantly stall national efforts to meet international climate commitments.
The Significance of the Endangerment Finding
To understand the weight of the current repeal, it is necessary to examine the origins of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The determination was the result of the landmark 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled 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.
In December 2009, following an exhaustive review of peer-reviewed science, the EPA issued two distinct findings. First, the "Endangerment Finding" confirmed 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. Second, the "Cause or Contribute Finding" concluded that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to this pollution.
For fifteen years, this finding has enabled the implementation of vehicle fuel economy standards, regulations on power plant emissions, and methane leak requirements for oil and gas operations. By repealing it, the EPA is not merely changing a policy; it is challenging the scientific consensus that has governed federal environmental protection for nearly two decades.
A Chronology of Deregulation: January 2025 to Present
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is viewed by critics as the culmination of a rapid-fire series of deregulatory actions initiated since January 2025. Under the leadership of Administrator Lee Zeldin, the EPA has undergone a significant internal reorganization, shifting focus away from climate mitigation and toward the expansion of fossil fuel production and industrial deregulation.
The timeline of these actions reflects a coordinated effort to dismantle the environmental framework established over the previous decades:
- January 2025: Immediately following the change in administration, the EPA announced a "pause and review" of all pending climate-related regulations, including stricter methane rules for the Permian Basin.
- February 2025: The agency moved to weaken the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), arguing that the compliance costs for coal-fired power plants outweighed the public health benefits.
- March 2025: A formal proposal was introduced to revise the "Social Cost of Carbon," a metric used to justify the economic benefits of climate regulations, effectively lowering the estimated cost of carbon damage to near zero.
- April 2025: The EPA announced the initiation of the process to repeal the Endangerment Finding, citing a need to "re-evaluate the underlying data" and provide "regulatory certainty" to the energy sector.
This sequence of events has drawn sharp criticism from environmental groups, who argue that the agency is prioritizing the short-term profits of fossil fuel interests over its statutory mission to protect human health and the environment.
The "Snow Drought" and the Climate Reality in the American West
The policy shift at the EPA comes at a time when the physical impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly visible, particularly in the American West. According to data from the SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) network and satellite observations from NASA’s Earth Observatory, winter snowpack across much of the Sierra Nevada, the Cascades, and the Rocky Mountains has reached historically low levels for the 2024-2025 season.
Meteorologists have termed this phenomenon a "snow drought." While total precipitation in some areas has remained near average, unusually high temperatures have caused a significant portion of that precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow. This shift has devastating implications for the hydrological cycle of the West.
Mountain snowpack acts as a natural "water tower," storing moisture during the winter and releasing it slowly during the spring and summer months. This gradual melt is essential for:
- Water Supply: Filling reservoirs that provide drinking water for millions of residents in states like California, Arizona, and Colorado.
- Agriculture: Providing a steady flow of irrigation for the Central Valley and other major agricultural hubs.
- Hydropower: Ensuring consistent river flows to drive turbines in hydroelectric dams, which provide a significant portion of the region’s renewable energy.
- Wildfire Mitigation: Keeping forests and grasslands hydrated later into the summer, thereby shortening the window of peak wildfire risk.
The current lack of snowpack is a direct manifestation of the warming trends identified in the original Endangerment Finding. By ignoring this data, POW argues, the EPA is failing to address a crisis that is already impacting the livelihoods of millions.
Economic Impact: The "Outdoor State" at Risk
Protect Our Winters emphasizes that the repeal of climate protections is not just an environmental issue, but a profound economic one. The "Outdoor State"—a term used to describe the collective of 181 million Americans who participate in outdoor recreation—contributes $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
This sector, which includes skiing, snowboarding, hiking, fishing, and rafting, supports over 5 million jobs and accounts for roughly 2% of the national GDP. In states like Montana, Wyoming, and Utah, the outdoor recreation economy is a primary driver of rural development and tax revenue.
The "snow drought" and the broader trend of warming winters pose an existential threat to this industry. Shorter ski seasons lead to reduced lift ticket sales, lower hotel occupancy, and diminished spending at local restaurants and gear shops. Furthermore, the increased frequency of wildfires during the summer months—exacerbated by low winter snowpack—deter tourists and damage the natural infrastructure (trails, forests, and rivers) upon which the industry depends.
POW’s call for Lee Zeldin’s resignation is rooted in the belief that the EPA’s current direction ignores the economic reality of the 21st century. The organization argues that a $1.2 trillion economy cannot survive if the foundational environmental conditions it relies upon are systematically dismantled.
Official Responses and Stakeholder Reactions
The EPA’s decision has sparked a polarized reaction across the political and industrial spectrum. In a statement accompanying the repeal, Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the move as a return to "rational governance."
"For too long, the EPA has used the Endangerment Finding as a blank check to impose burdensome regulations on the American people and our energy independence," Zeldin stated. "By rescinding this finding, we are returning the agency to its core mission: ensuring clean air and water through balanced, common-sense solutions that do not cripple our economy or punish hardworking families."
Conversely, the scientific community has expressed alarm. A joint statement from several prominent climate scientists noted that "the evidence supporting the endangerment of public health by greenhouse gases has only grown stronger since 2009. To repeal this finding is to ignore decades of peer-reviewed research and the lived experience of communities facing record-breaking heatwaves, floods, and droughts."
Legal experts also anticipate a protracted battle in the courts. "The EPA cannot simply choose to ignore science because it is politically inconvenient," said a spokesperson for a leading environmental law firm. "Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the agency must provide a reasoned explanation for changing its position. Given the overwhelming scientific consensus, it will be extremely difficult for the EPA to defend this repeal in front of a judge."
Analysis of Implications: A Weakened Regulatory Toolkit
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding has immediate and far-reaching implications for the future of U.S. climate policy. Without the legal trigger of "endangerment," the EPA’s ability to defend its regulations in court is severely compromised.
- Vehicle Emissions: The "Clean Car Standards," which mandate improvements in fuel efficiency and reductions in tailpipe CO2, are now vulnerable to being struck down, as the agency no longer acknowledges the underlying harm those emissions cause.
- Power Plant Regulations: Efforts to limit carbon pollution from existing coal and gas-fired power plants will lose their primary legal justification, likely leading to an increase in high-emission energy production.
- Methane Rules: Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a warming potential much higher than CO2. The repeal undermines the basis for requiring oil and gas companies to detect and repair leaks.
- International Standing: The U.S. role in the Paris Agreement and other international climate forums is predicated on domestic action. The repeal signals a withdrawal from global leadership, potentially discouraging other nations from meeting their own targets.
Conclusion: The Path Forward for Protect Our Winters
For Protect Our Winters and its allies, the call for Lee Zeldin’s resignation is the first step in a broader campaign to restore science-based governance at the EPA. The organization has announced plans to mobilize the "Outdoor State" through grassroots advocacy, legal challenges, and partnerships with Tribal nations and rural communities that are on the front lines of climate impacts.
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding marks a pivotal moment in American environmental history. As the American West grapples with a historic snow drought and the outdoor economy faces unprecedented uncertainty, the debate over the EPA’s direction has moved beyond policy circles and into the daily lives of millions of citizens. Whether the agency can fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment in the absence of its most critical scientific tool remains a central question for the future of the nation.