{"id":28370,"date":"2026-02-20T10:59:23","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T15:59:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=28370"},"modified":"2026-02-21T04:01:32","modified_gmt":"2026-02-21T09:01:32","slug":"responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/","title":{"rendered":"Responding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule<\/a> rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and eliminating all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for U.S. motor vehicles and engines. To justify this action, EPA has adopted an \u00a0interpretation of the Clean Air Act that has no judicial support \u2013 arguing that it lacks authority to regulate GHG emissions under section 202(a)(1) because it does not have explicit congressional authorization to address global climate change concerns. In addition, EPA asserts that there is no basis for the 2009 endangerment finding or subsequent regulations because, in its view, GHG emissions standards for U.S. motor vehicles and engines do not have a \u201cmaterial\u201d effect on public health and welfare.<\/p>\n

In this blog post, we focus on EPA\u2019s arguments about the non-material or \u201cde minimis<\/em>\u201d effects of U.S. motor vehicle emissions. As detailed below, EPA has made a scientific and factual determination about harm attribution \u2013 a reversal from its 2009 endangerment finding \u2013 which it has improperly characterized as a legal determination and failed to substantiate with scientific evidence. Moreover, EPA is relying on a \u201cdrop in the bucket\u201d argument about climate-related harms that is both legally and factually unsound, especially when applied to a source category that generates nearly 4% of total global CO2<\/sub> emissions and causes approximately $415 billion in annual climate damages, based on EPA\u2019s\u00a0 2023 social cost of carbon (SC-CO2<\/sub>) estimates. EPA\u2019s approach to the harm attribution question is clearly inconsistent with its statutory directives, and its factual conclusions are contradicted by a large body of scientific evidence that the agency has simply ignored.<\/p>\n

Background <\/strong><\/h3>\n

Section 202(a)(1)<\/a> of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to develop emission standards for the control of air pollution from new motor vehicles or engines which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA and the courts have consistently interpreted this provision as requiring a purely scientific judgment about the effects of motor vehicle emissions on people and the environment. (See, e.g., <\/em>Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA<\/em><\/a>.) The statute does not authorize EPA to consider other factors, such as regulatory costs or feasibility, when issuing an endangerment finding. Rather, the statute directs EPA to consider the effect of emission control standards at a later stage in the rulemaking \u2013 specifically, if EPA issues an affirmative endangerment finding, it must promulgate standards \u201cwhich reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable\u201d through available technologies, taking into account considerations such as cost, energy, and safety. See <\/em>section 202(a)(3)(A).<\/p>\n

In Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>the Supreme Court held that GHG emissions qualified as \u201cair pollutants\u201d under section 202(a)(1) and that EPA could not avoid making a scientific determination on endangerment based on political or regulatory considerations not articulated in the statute. In 2009, EPA issued an affirmative endangerment finding for GHG emissions from U.S. motor vehicles that was supported by a detailed scientific analysis<\/a> of the relationship between GHG emissions, global climate change, and potential effects on public health and welfare. \u00a0As discussed in a previous blog post<\/a>, the 2009 endangerment finding was upheld in court, with the D.C. Circuit finding that EPA had amassed a \u201csubstantial\u201d body of evidence to support the finding. The underlying scientific evidence has only grown stronger over time.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, in the proposed rule<\/a> for this action, EPA sought to justify the repeal of the endangerment finding on scientific grounds. EPA argued that there was \u201cinsufficient reliable information\u201d about the harmful effects of climate change, and that reports from scientific authorities such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) were \u201cunduly pessimistic\u201d about those harmful effects. However, EPA backtracked from this position in the final rule \u2013 it claims that the repeal is based purely on legal considerations, and that it is not issuing a new finding under section 202(a)(1).<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s primary argument is that it lacks \u201cclear congressional authorization\u201d for regulating GHG emissions under section 202(a), and its regulatory authority only extends to \u201cair pollution\u201d that threatens health and welfare \u201cthrough local and regional exposure.\u201d EPA cites recent Supreme Court decisions applying the \u201cmajor questions\u201d doctrine as its primary support for this argument. As we explained in comments<\/a> on the proposed rule, EPA\u2019s interpretation is clearly inconsistent with legal precedent: the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em><\/a> that GHGs \u201cunambiguous[ly]\u201d qualify as \u201cair pollutants\u201d under section 202(a), and thus \u201cEPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles.\u201d The Supreme Court has also consistently affirmed EPA\u2019s authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Act, even where it has found that EPA\u2019s choice of regulatory mechanism exceeded its statutory authority. (See, e.g., <\/em>West Virginia v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA<\/em><\/a>). EPA now argues that GHG emissions do not cause \u201cair pollution\u201d within the meaning of the Act, even though they qualify as \u201cair pollutants.\u201d But the Act expressly links these concepts, defining \u201cair pollutant\u201d as \u201cany air pollution agent or combination of such agents.\u201d 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 7602(g)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

EPA has also articulated a \u201cseparate but complementary basis\u201d for the repeal \u2013 specifically, that GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines are \u201cfutile because they have no material (i.e., non-de minimis<\/em>) impact on global climate change concerns.\u201d EPA argues that even the complete elimination of GHG emissions from U.S. motor vehicles would not have a material effect on public health and welfare. EPA claims that this is not a scientific finding on endangerment, but rather a legal determination related to the scope of its statutory authority which precludes it from fully assessing the question of endangerment. In particular, EPA asserts that it \u201cshould not and need not make an endangerment finding\u201d when subsequent regulations \u201cwould have no meaningful impact on the identified dangers.\u201d<\/p>\n

Because EPA treats this as a purely \u201clegal\u201d analysis, EPA concludes that it is \u201cunnecessary and inappropriate to resolve outstanding scientific questions\u201d related to 2009 Endangerment Finding. Accordingly, EPA treats all of the scientific information that was submitted during the notice and comment period as irrelevant to the final rule. For example, EPA claims that scientific materials submitted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (\u201cNational Academies\u201d) \u2013 which are directly relevant to assessing attributable harms from GHG emissions, as well as the efficacy of emission control measures \u2013 are \u201cnot pertinent\u201d to the final action, because EPA\u2019s decision is \u201ca matter of statutory interpretation, not scientific analysis within the [National Academies\u2019] purview.\u201d<\/p>\n

But EPA has clearly made a factual determination about the magnitude of harms attributable to U.S. motor vehicle emissions which runs directly counter to the scientific analysis underpinning the 2009 endangerment finding. EPA characterizes this as a legal determination in order to avoid meeting its evidentiary burden under section 202(a)(1).<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s Analysis of Attributable Climate Effects from U.S. Motor Vehicles<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In the final rule, EPA predicts that annual CO2<\/sub> emissions from U.S. motor vehicles will comprise approximately 4% of global CO2<\/sub> emissions in 2027, 3% of global CO2<\/sub> emissions in 2050 and 10% of global CO2<\/sub> emissions in 2100. This is based on EPA\u2019s projections of annual emissions from all new and existing on-road motor vehicles (1,630 million tons CO2<\/sub> in 2027, 1,390 million tons CO2<\/sub> in 2050, and 1,380 million tons CO2<\/sub> in 2100) as compared with projected global emissions in the IPCC\u2019s \u201cshared socioeconomic pathway 2\u201d (SSP2-4.5).<\/p>\n

EPA claims that even the complete elimination of these U.S. motor vehicle emissions would not have a material effect on predicted trends in global mean surface temperature (GMST) or global mean sea level rise (GSLR). Specifically, EPA projects that U.S. motor vehicle emissions will contribute approximately 2% of the increase in GMST by 2050 (~ 0.013\u00b0C) and 3% of the increase in GMST by 2100 (~ 0.037\u00b0C), and approximately 1% of the increase in GSLR by 2050 (~ 0.09 cm) and 2% of the increase in GSLR by 2100 (~ 1.4 cm). EPA concludes that these contributions to global trends in temperature and sea level rise are \u201crelatively minor\u201d without any further assessment of the attributable effects on public health and welfare.<\/p>\n

EPA asserts that this scenario is a \u201cdramatic overestimation\u201d of the potential impacts of GHG emission standards \u201cwhich apply only to new vehicles and engines.\u201d EPA therefore considers a separate scenario where modeled impacts are discounted by 50% and estimates that maintaining GHG emissions standards for U.S. motor vehicles would result in a 0.007\u00b0C impact on projected GMST through 2050 and a 0.019\u00b0C impact on GMST through 2100, and a 0.05 cm impact on projected GSLR through 2050 and a 0.7 cm impact on GSLR through 2100.\u201d In this part of its analysis, EPA fails to acknowledge that the vast majority of existing vehicles on the road in 2050 and 2100 would have been subject to the GHG standards for model years 2012 and later, and the tightening of these emissions standards would result in further emission reductions in future years.<\/p>\n

EPA concludes that the impacts on public health and welfare are \u201cde minimis\u201d<\/em> (i.e., \u201cno material impact\u201d) under both the complete elimination and 50 percent reduction scenarios. EPA says it did not consider other impacts identified in the 2009 endangerment finding \u2013 e.g., hurricanes, floods, heat waves, and ocean acidification \u2013 due to the \u201cspeculative, multi-faceted, and multi-causal\u201d nature of those impacts. EPA also asserts that the \u201cprojected impacts on GMST and GSLR trends do not translate directly to adverse health and welfare impacts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Problems with EPA\u2019s Determination Regarding the \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Effect of Motor Vehicle Emissions<\/strong><\/h3>\n

There are several major problems with EPA\u2019s assessment of the public health and welfare effects attributable to U.S. motor vehicle GHG emissions. First, EPA has issued a factual determination on endangerment \u2013 essentially reversing course from its 2009 endangerment finding \u2013 without providing an adequate scientific justification for the reversal. Second, EPA\u2019s \u201cdrop in the bucket\u201d argument is logically incoherent and inconsistent with legal precedent and scientific understanding of climate change. Third, regarding the factual determination itself: there is no scientific basis for concluding that U.S. motor vehicle emissions have a \u201cde minimis<\/em>\u201d effect on climate-related harms. To the contrary, the available scientific evidence shows that these emissions have a significant effect on public health and welfare by any reasonable measure.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. No Scientific Justification for Reversing Course on 2009 Endangerment Finding<\/u><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    EPA\u2019s factual determination that U.S. motor vehicle emissions have \u201cde minimis\u201d impacts on public health runs directly counter to the scientific conclusions underpinning the 2009 endangerment finding and subsequent endangerment findings for other source categories. EPA has an obligation to provide a reasoned explanation this reversal in accordance with sections 202(a) and 307(d) of the Clean Air Act. EPA has circumvented that obligation by framing its decision as a matter of \u201cstatutory interpretation\u201d and insisting that it is not issuing a new endangerment finding under Section 202(a)(1). EPA insists that it is \u201cunnecessary and inappropriate to resolve outstanding scientific questions regarding global climate change concerns\u201d in the context of this action, and thus it performed only a cursory analysis of GHG emissions and their effect on GMST and GSLR which was solely intended to support its argument about regulatory futility. As noted above, EPA did not consider any scientific evidence regarding the actual impacts attributable to the projected increases in GMST or GSLR.<\/p>\n

    In addition, EPA\u2019s novel theory of regulatory \u201cfutility\u201d collapses the distinction between an endangerment finding and the subsequent assessment of regulatory feasibility and efficacy, essentially guaranteeing that EPA will consider factors other than the effect of emissions on public health and welfare when issuing findings under section 202(a)(1). This theory also inverts the logical order of assessment, i.e., EPA claims that it must first determine whether regulations would have a \u201cmeaningful impact on the identified dangers\u201d before it conducts a full scientific analysis to identify those dangers. This is inconsistent with the text and structure of section 202(a)(1), which requires EPA to promulgate emission standards for any air pollutants from motor vehicles that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (thus requiring an initial finding regarding the overall effects of emissions, not the effects of regulatory action). See<\/em> Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em><\/a>. Moreover, the statute does not authorize EPA to avoid issuing motor vehicle emission standards \u2013 or to rescind existing standards \u2013 based on EPA\u2019s conclusions about the degree of emissions limitation achievable through those standard<\/p>\n

    2. Problems with the “Drop in the Bucket” Argument<\/u><\/p>\n

    EPA\u2019s justification is a prime example of the long-extant \u201cdrop in the bucket<\/a>\u201d argument against climate action, i.e., the notion that individual actions or policies are too small to have a meaningful effect on global climate change. This argument is an inversion of reality. As the IPCC and USGCRP have both recognized, climate change is a cumulative problem and every incremental increase in GHG emissions and global temperatures will further exacerbate the adverse impacts on people and ecosystems. Accordingly, every incremental measure taken to reduce GHG emissions will help mitigate the adverse effects on public health and welfare.<\/p>\n

    The Supreme Court recognized this in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>where it held that U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a \u201cmeaningful contribution\u201d to global climate change \u201cjudged by any standard\u201d and that even incremental mitigation measures can help offset the injuries attributable to those emissions. Granted, the Supreme Court was evaluating injury, causation, and redressability for Article 3 standing purposes, and the specific threshold for cognizable harm may be different when considering EPA\u2019s statutory duties under section 202(a). But the Supreme Court\u2019s commentary is nonetheless relevant when considering the general merits of the \u201cdrop in the bucket\u201d argument. In addition, the D.C. Circuit found that EPA had adequately supported its 2009 finding that motor vehicle emission \u201ccause or contribute\u201d to climate-related harms in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> and the Supreme Court denied cert on that issue, thus allowing the D.C. Circuit\u2019s holding to stand.<\/p>\n

    There are many other examples of courts and legal authorities rejecting the \u201cdrop in the bucket\u201d argument with regards to government action on climate change. These include major decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ)<\/a>, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)<\/a>, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)<\/a>, and national high courts in Germany<\/a>, the Netherlands<\/a>, Nepal<\/a>, India<\/a>, Colombia<\/a>, and elsewhere. For example, the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect to Climate Change<\/em><\/a> recognized that all <\/em>countries have a duty of care with regards to the control of GHG emissions, as the \u201crisks and projected adverse impacts and related loss and damage from climate change will escalate with every increment of global warming.\u201d\u00a0 Similarly, the ECtHR has recognized<\/a> that \u201cevery incremental increase in emissions\u201d causes an increase in health-related risks, and \u201cthe fact that climate change [is] caused by cumulative, global emissions [does] not absolve individual States from responsibility\u201d for climate-related harms attributable to their GHG emissions.<\/p>\n

    One notable aspect of these legal decisions is that they recognize government obligations to control GHGs even where the emissions at issue are much smaller than those attributable to U.S. motor vehicles. This is generally true for cases involving national obligations because the vast majority of countries emit less CO2<\/sub> from all<\/em> sectors than U.S. motor vehicles (the only exceptions are China, Russia, India and the U.S. itself). There are also U.S. decisions recognizing legally cognizable harms at much smaller scales. For example, the Supreme Court of Montana rejected the \u201cdrop in the bucket\u201d argument in Held v. Montana<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>finding that there was a sufficient causal connection between 32 million tons of CO2<\/sub> attributable to Montana fossil fuels and climate-related harms to human health and welfare.<\/p>\n

    Thus, EPA\u2019s position is inconsistent with scientific evidence and out of step with the weight of the world\u2019s legal opinion. It would also lead to absurd consequences if adopted by other regulatory entities. Based on EPA\u2019s logic, there is essentially no sector or source category in the entire world that makes a \u201cmaterial\u201d contribution to climate change (since the same logic could be applied to other major source categories in the U.S. as well as top emitters like China, India, and Russia).<\/p>\n

    3. EPA\u2019s Conclusion About the De Minimis<\/em> Impact on Public Health and Welfare<\/u><\/p>\n

    The third problem with EPA\u2019s assessment relates to the factual conclusion itself. By EPA\u2019s own estimate, U.S. on-road motor vehicles will generate 1,630 million tons of CO2<\/sub> in 2027 \u2013 roughly 4% of total global emissions. This is an exceedingly large contribution to global emissions. As noted above, this is larger than the total CO2<\/sub> emissions<\/a> attributable to all but four countries \u2013 the U.S., China, India, and Russia. It is equivalent to approximately half of the emissions attributable to the entire European Union, and it exceeds the emissions generated by the entire continent of Africa.\u00a0 It is patently absurd to argue that this qualifies as a \u201cde minimis<\/em>\u201d contribution to climate-related harms.<\/p>\n

    The IPCC, USGCRP, National Academies, and many other scientific authorities have recognized that climate change is a global problem with widespread, pervasive, and potentially irreversible adverse effects on public health and welfare. The overall magnitude of harms attributable to climate change is enormous, and it is clear that a 4% contribution to these harms surpasses any reasonable threshold of materiality.<\/p>\n

    EPA attempts to minimize the impacts by focusing on attributable increases in global mean temperature (GMST) and sea level rise (GSLR) which have the appearance of being relatively minor (e.g., the emissions will \u201conly\u201d a 0.013\u00b0C increase in GMST by 2050 and a 0.037\u00b0C increase in GMST by 2100). By focusing on these seemingly small changes in long-term average trends, EPA is obscuring the actual effect of these changes on human health and well-being.<\/p>\n

    The significance of a 0.037\u00b0C in global mean temperature becomes more obvious when considering the specific impacts that will occur as a result of that increase. For example, using a quantification framework developed by Abram et al. (2025)<\/a>, the attributable increase in GMST would result in: (i) approximately 48.5 million additional people exposed to unprecedented extreme heat; (ii) approximately 33.4 million additional people left outside of the human climate niche, and (iii) the death of an additional ~ 1.5 billion coral colonies in the Great Barrier Reef during every future mass bleaching event. EPA\u2019s SC-CO2 <\/sub>estimates provide additional insights on the potential magnitude of harm. Based on EPA\u2019s 2023 SC-CO2 <\/sub>estimates<\/a> (2% average discount rate) and 2027 emission projections (1,630 million tons CO2<\/sub>), U.S. on-road motor vehicles will cause approximately $415 billion in annual climate damages next year.<\/p>\n

    There are many other tools that can be used to assess the effects attributable to GHG emissions from U.S motor vehicles, including impact attribution research, health impact assessments, end-to-end attribution studies, and other frameworks for estimating economic damages. See, e.g<\/em>., Romanello et al. (2025)<\/a>, Callahan & Mankin (2025)<\/a>, Howard et al. (2025)<\/a>, Berberian et al. (2024)<\/a>, Burke et al. (2023)<\/a>. EPA received comments from the Sabin Center<\/a> and many other organizations detailing the available scientific information on climate change and how this should inform EPA\u2019s assessment of public health and welfare effects (see, e.g., this report<\/a> submitted by the National Academies). Unfortunately, because EPA has framed this as a purely legal determination, it has simply refused to engage with the scientific evidence on this topic.<\/p>\n

    Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    EPA has made a sweeping determination that GHG emissions from U.S. motor vehicles do not materially affect public health and welfare. EPA has characterized this as a matter of \u201cstatutory interpretation\u201d to avoid the evidentiary requirements for an endangerment finding under section 202(a)(1). The agency\u2019s own projections show that U.S. motor vehicles account for a substantial share of global emissions, and the scientific literature makes clear that even small incremental increases in global temperature translate to significant impacts on people and ecosystems. EPA has totally failed to engage with the scientific evidence on climate impacts and instead has invoked a novel and unsupported legal theory of \u201cfutility\u201d in order to circumvent its regulatory obligations under the Clean Air Act.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and eliminating all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for U.S. motor vehicles and engines. To justify this action, EPA has adopted an \u00a0interpretation of the Clean Air Act that has no judicial […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2314,"featured_media":26802,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69225,69207],"tags":[5529,69959,9435],"class_list":{"0":"post-28370","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-climate-science","8":"category-cross-cutting-issues","9":"tag-epa-clean-air-act-ghg-rules","10":"tag-endangerment-finding","11":"tag-epa","12":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nResponding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Responding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"  On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and eliminating all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for U.S. motor vehicles and engines. To justify this action, EPA has adopted an \u00a0interpretation of the Clean Air Act that has no judicial […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-20T15:59:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-21T09:01:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/chris-johnson-U2hyRYcVxb8-unsplash-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jessica Wentz\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jessica Wentz\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jessica Wentz\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/0b8e09caa570761233643ba0af724045\"},\"headline\":\"Responding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-20T15:59:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-21T09:01:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/\"},\"wordCount\":3334,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/chris-johnson-U2hyRYcVxb8-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Clean Air Act\",\"endangerment finding\",\"EPA\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Science\",\"Cross-cutting Issues\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/\",\"name\":\"Responding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/chris-johnson-U2hyRYcVxb8-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-20T15:59:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-21T09:01:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/chris-johnson-U2hyRYcVxb8-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/chris-johnson-U2hyRYcVxb8-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Responding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/0b8e09caa570761233643ba0af724045\",\"name\":\"Jessica Wentz\",\"description\":\"Jessica is now a non-resident senior fellow at the Sabin Center.\",\"url\":\"#molongui-disabled-link\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Responding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Responding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"  On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and eliminating all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for U.S. motor vehicles and engines. To justify this action, EPA has adopted an \u00a0interpretation of the Clean Air Act that has no judicial […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2026-02-20T15:59:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-21T09:01:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1707,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/chris-johnson-U2hyRYcVxb8-unsplash-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jessica Wentz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jessica Wentz","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/"},"author":{"name":"Jessica Wentz","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/0b8e09caa570761233643ba0af724045"},"headline":"Responding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms","datePublished":"2026-02-20T15:59:23+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-21T09:01:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/"},"wordCount":3334,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/chris-johnson-U2hyRYcVxb8-unsplash-scaled.jpg","keywords":["Clean Air Act","endangerment finding","EPA"],"articleSection":["Climate Science","Cross-cutting Issues"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/","name":"Responding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/chris-johnson-U2hyRYcVxb8-unsplash-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-02-20T15:59:23+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-21T09:01:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/chris-johnson-U2hyRYcVxb8-unsplash-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/chris-johnson-U2hyRYcVxb8-unsplash-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1707},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/02\/20\/responding-to-epas-claim-that-u-s-motor-vehicle-emissions-have-a-de-minimis-impact-on-climate-related-harms\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Responding to EPA\u2019s Claim that U.S. Motor Vehicle Emissions Have a \u201cDe Minimis\u201d Impact on Climate-Related Harms"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/0b8e09caa570761233643ba0af724045","name":"Jessica Wentz","description":"Jessica is now a non-resident senior fellow at the Sabin Center.","url":"#molongui-disabled-link"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28370","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2314"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28370"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28370\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28379,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28370\/revisions\/28379"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26802"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}