The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially moved to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a cornerstone scientific and legal determination that identified greenhouse gas emissions as a threat to public health and welfare. This administrative action, led by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, represents a fundamental shift in federal climate policy and has prompted immediate calls for his resignation from environmental advocacy groups, most notably Protect Our Winters (POW). The organization, which represents a coalition of professional athletes, scientists, and business leaders, argues that the repeal undermines the legal framework necessary to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act.
The Endangerment Finding, established in 2009 following the landmark Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), serves as the scientific bedrock for nearly all federal climate regulations. By rescinding this finding, the EPA effectively abdicates its mandate to mitigate the impacts of climate change, a move that critics describe as a prioritization of fossil fuel interests over established environmental science. The decision comes at a time when the American West is grappling with record-low snowpack levels and rising temperatures, factors that POW asserts are direct consequences of the very emissions the EPA is now choosing not to regulate.
The Legal and Scientific Significance of the Endangerment Finding
To understand the gravity of the current repeal, it is necessary to examine the historical and legal origins of the Endangerment Finding. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are considered air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Court mandated that the EPA determine whether these emissions contribute to climate change that endangers public health or welfare. In December 2009, after an exhaustive review of peer-reviewed science, the EPA issued two distinct findings.
First, the "Endangerment Finding" stated that the current and projected 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" stated that the combined emissions of these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
These findings did not themselves impose regulations but triggered a mandatory duty for the EPA to regulate these pollutants. Over the past 15 years, the Endangerment Finding has supported the implementation of fuel economy standards for vehicles, limits on carbon pollution from power plants, and regulations on methane leaks from oil and gas operations. The repeal of this finding, therefore, creates a legal vacuum that could potentially dismantle dozens of existing environmental protections.
Chronology of Federal Climate Policy and the 2025 Shift
The trajectory of U.S. climate policy has seen significant fluctuations over the last two decades, culminating in the current administration’s aggressive deregulation strategy.
- 2007: The Supreme Court rules that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases if they are found to endanger public health.
- 2009: The EPA issues the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings.
- 2015: The Clean Power Plan is introduced, utilizing the Endangerment Finding as its legal basis.
- 2017–2021: The Trump administration attempts to weaken various climate rules but does not successfully repeal the Endangerment Finding itself, citing the high bar of scientific evidence required to do so.
- 2021–2024: The Biden administration reinstates and strengthens climate mandates, including new standards for heavy-duty vehicles and power plant emissions.
- January 2025: Following a change in administration, Lee Zeldin is appointed EPA Administrator. A sweeping agenda of deregulation begins, targeting the foundational science of the agency.
- Current Action: The EPA formally announces the repeal of the Endangerment Finding, leading to immediate calls for administrative accountability.
Under Administrator Zeldin’s leadership, the agency has moved with unprecedented speed to roll back protections. Since taking office in January 2025, the EPA has focused on reducing the "regulatory burden" on the energy sector, often citing the need for domestic energy independence and lower costs for consumers. However, environmental legal experts argue that the repeal of a science-based finding is legally precarious and will likely face years of litigation in federal courts.
The Scientific Reality: The 2025 "Snow Drought" and Climate Impacts
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding occurs against a backdrop of severe environmental distress in the United States. Scientific measurements and satellite data from early 2025 indicate that winter snowpack across the American West is at historically low levels. Meteorologists and hydrologists have termed this phenomenon a "snow drought," driven by unusually high winter temperatures that cause precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow.
In states such as Colorado, Utah, and California, the Snow Water Equivalent (SWE)—a critical metric for measuring the amount of water contained within the snowpack—is significantly below the 30-year average. This trend is not merely a concern for the winter sports industry; the snowpack serves as the primary reservoir for the Western United States. It feeds the Colorado River and other major watersheds that provide drinking water to tens of millions of people and irrigation for the nation’s most productive agricultural regions.
When snowpack thins or melts prematurely due to rising temperatures, the ecological and economic consequences are cascading. Water supplies tighten during the peak summer growing season, hydropower generation capacity is reduced, and the risk of catastrophic wildfires increases as forests dry out earlier in the year. Protect Our Winters highlights that these specific impacts are the very "threats to public welfare" that the 2009 Endangerment Finding was designed to address. By ignoring the link between fossil fuel emissions and these tangible climate impacts, the EPA is accused of disregarding its core mission.
Economic Implications for the "Outdoor State"
The economic ramifications of the EPA’s decision are substantial, particularly for what POW calls the "Outdoor State"—the collective body of 181 million Americans who participate in outdoor recreation. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the outdoor recreation economy accounts for approximately $1.2 trillion in annual economic output, representing nearly 2.3% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
This sector supports 5 million jobs and is a vital economic driver for rural communities and Tribal nations. The industry relies heavily on predictable seasonal patterns and the health of natural ecosystems. A shortened or volatile winter season directly impacts ski resorts, gear manufacturers, and the hospitality industry in mountain towns. Similarly, warming waters and reduced streamflows threaten the multi-billion-dollar fly-fishing and rafting industries.
POW and its allies argue that the EPA’s current deregulatory path prioritizes the short-term profits of the fossil fuel industry over the long-term stability of the $1.2 trillion recreation economy. The organization asserts that a healthy planet is not a luxury but a fundamental requirement for economic prosperity. The call for Lee Zeldin’s resignation is rooted in the belief that the current EPA leadership is failing to protect the economic interests of a significant portion of the American workforce.
Responses from Stakeholders and the Legal Community
The repeal has elicited a polarized response across the political and industrial spectrum. Proponents of the EPA’s move, including several trade associations representing the oil and coal industries, have praised the decision. They argue that the 2009 Endangerment Finding was based on "flawed modeling" and that its repeal will spur investment in domestic energy projects, leading to job creation and lower energy prices.
Conversely, the scientific and legal communities have expressed alarm. Legal scholars point out that for the EPA to legally repeal the Endangerment Finding, it must provide a "reasoned explanation" supported by new scientific evidence that contradicts the mountains of data confirming the warming effects of greenhouse gases. Since the global scientific consensus on climate change has only strengthened since 2009, many experts believe the repeal will be struck down in court.
Environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), are expected to file lawsuits immediately. These groups argue that the EPA is violating its statutory duty under the Clean Air Act. Tribal nations have also voiced concerns, noting that the loss of federal climate protections disproportionately affects indigenous communities that rely on stable climates for subsistence hunting, fishing, and cultural practices.
Conclusion: The Path Forward and the Call for Accountability
The demand for Administrator Lee Zeldin’s resignation marks a significant escalation in the tension between the current administration and the environmental advocacy community. Protect Our Winters maintains that an EPA that actively dismantles the tools designed to protect public health cannot fulfill its primary mandate.
As the legal battles over the Endangerment Finding begin, the environmental impacts continue to manifest. The "snow drought" of 2025 serves as a stark reminder of the volatility of a changing climate. For the 181 million Americans who comprise the Outdoor State, the stakes are not merely political or ideological; they are existential. The transition of the EPA from a regulatory safeguard to an active participant in deregulation has created a crossroads for federal environmental policy.
The outcome of this conflict will likely determine the trajectory of U.S. climate action for the next decade. Whether through the courts, through legislative action, or through public pressure and calls for administrative change, the debate over the Endangerment Finding remains at the heart of the nation’s struggle to balance industrial interests with the necessity of a habitable planet. For now, the call for Lee Zeldin to step down stands as a firm rejection of a policy path that critics say ignores science and jeopardizes the future of the American environment and economy alike.
