WASHINGTON—Addressing a conference of scientists and other experts skeptical of climate change, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Wednesday celebrated his decision to repeal what is known as the “endangerment finding,” which provided the backbone for federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

“It is a day to celebrate vindication!” he said.

The February repeal of the finding allows the federal government to stop regulating climate emissions from sources like cars, trucks and power plants.

“We’re getting back to the basics and we’re not accepting all of the narrative of the left without any question or pushback,” Zeldin said to a cheering audience at the 16th International Conference on Climate Change, organized by the conservative Heartland Institute, the CO2 Coalition, Watts Up With That and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

Wednesday’s event provided an opportunity for the Trump administration to bask in the praise from those who support the rollback of climate regulations. But 24 states have already joined to sue the EPA over the decision in federal court.

“Rescinding this EPA determination will undo progress we have made to address climate change by eliminating existing EPA greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles and undermining the EPA’s mandate to regulate harmful air pollution that causes climate change,” Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said in a statement about the lawsuit on March 19.

Ahead of Zeldin’s speech, experts criticized the administration for abdicating leadership on climate change despite the growing risk of its effects such as wildfire, heat waves and more damaging hurricanes.

“Climate change is creating more risk everywhere, threatening our safety and stability,” said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environment Defense Fund, in a statement. “But administrator Zeldin’s response sounds a lot like the Heartland Institute’s rhetoric: There’s nothing to see here.”

At the conference, Nancy Goodnight, a retired teacher from Texas, watched Zeldin speak for the first time.

“He spoke truth,” she said after the speech. “This guy is very knowledgeable and a perfect fit for the EPA. He showed a lot of depth in what goes on at the EPA as well as what needs to go on at the EPA.”

In his speech, Zeldin cast doubt on the science the Obama administration cited in 2009 to show that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. At the time, the EPA also issued a concurrent finding that emissions from new gas-powered motor vehicles “cause or contribute” to climate change.

Zeldin specifically attacked the ranges that scientists used to talk about the likely impacts of climate change.

“We want to know whether it’s going to be rain or shine,” Zeldin said. “We do not want your range, we want to know exactly what’s going on. The problem is that science, you wanna be completely honest? It comes with a range of possibilities.”

Dana Fisher, director of the Center for Environment, Community and Equity at American University, said that scientists use ranges because they cannot predict the future with certainty but can describe probabilities and likelihoods.

“You can say with 95 percent confidence that temperatures will rise within a specific range based on the research,” said Fisher, a sociologist who has researched how political elites respond to climate change. “He’s saying that he doesn’t want to have those kinds of intervals, he just wants to know a yes or no, and that’s not how science works. It’s not how statistics works either, so it’s just too bad.”

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Donate Now

Zeldin also addressed his agency’s cancellation of almost 800 grants to communities hurt by environmental problems. He claimed they were being spent “on a left-wing activist group that trains other activists to come to D.C. and advocate for the next dollar to go to them.”

Fisher said this was “a misrepresentation of how the money was being spent.” She said the grants were intended to help communities overburdened by pollution, the effects of climate change and other environmental hazards. She said environmental nonprofits organizations that received the grants were not allowed to lobby Congress or federal agencies due to their 501(c)(3) tax status. To be allowed to lobby, groups must have 501(c)(4) status.

Just outside of the conference, Austin Matheny-Kawesch, a senior communications manager for advocacy at the EDF representing its partner organization, EDF Action, spun a colorful wheel filled with examples of climate change effects.

“Redacting the truth about an overheating planet doesn’t make the problem go away,” he said. “We’re reminding people that the Trump administration’s policy of climate denial won’t lower your electricity bills or insurance premiums, reduce pollution or make you healthier.”

The Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial and skepticism regarding the scientific consensus on global warming. According to The New York Times, the institute sent copies of its book Climate at a Glance to thousands of science teachers to provide them with “the data to show the Earth is not experiencing a climate crisis.”

During the repeal announcement, President Donald Trump called the finding a “radical rule” and “the basis for the Green New Scam.” Since 2012, Trump has been vocal about his skepticism of climate change, expressing his support for rescinding President Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan. In both his first and second terms, he has pulled the United States out of the 2015 Paris Agreement, under which more than 193 other countries volunteered to cut emissions and work to limit global temperature rise.

Zeldin’s rhetoric will harm science because the federal government seems willing to reject grant proposals that don’t align with the administration’s positions, even though the warming of the planet and many climate effects are settled science, according to Fisher.

“It is going to affect those of us who do the actual science because it is trying to set a groundwork for claims that any research that doesn’t come to conclusions, like the ones they’re discussing at this conference, are ideologically driven,” she said. “It also means we won’t be able to get funding to do this kind of research if we don’t follow an ideological trend that is what the administrator is pushing for.”