Florida Faces Federal Shift in Greenhouse Gas Regulation
By Johani Carolina Ponce
What would happen if the government stopped considering the pollution behind the increase in extreme heat, coastal flooding, and weather events already affecting Florida to be dangerous? For a state identified as among the most vulnerable to climate change by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that scenario is no longer hypothetical.
On Thursday, February 12, 2026, President Donald Trump announced that his administration eliminated the 2009 endangerment finding (the Environmental Protection Agency’s, EPA’s, hazard determination) that established that six greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane, pollutants that trap heat in the atmosphere, threaten public health and the environment. That scientific conclusion was the legal basis that allowed the federal government to regulate, for the first time, the pollution responsible for global warming.
The authority originated from the Clean Air Act, passed in 1970 to combat smog and toxic pollutants. According to official EPA data, between 1970 and 2019, air pollution in the United States was reduced by approximately 77%, preventing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory illnesses. Following the implementation of climate change regulations in 2009, federal regulations, especially those concerning cars and trucks, have reduced CO₂ emissions by more than 7 billion tons through 2026 and generated fuel savings of over $1.7 trillion for consumers, thanks to more efficient vehicles.
An average vehicle in the U.S. emits approximately 4.6 tons of CO₂ per year, according to official EPA data. Multiplying that figure by the more than 280 million registered vehicles in the country, the collective emissions from cars total billions of tons each year. A reduction of 7 billion tons of CO₂ is roughly equivalent to eliminating all emissions from American cars for more than five years—a comparison that helps visualize the magnitude of the impact.
The Trump administration’s official justification
The Trump administration defended the decision as a measure to reduce regulations that, according to the EPA, made vehicles more expensive and limited energy production. In the official statement, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called the repeal “the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history” and maintained that the hazard determination had been used to impose significant costs on consumers and manufacturers. The agency estimated that eliminating these standards could save more than $1.3 trillion in long-term regulatory costs, a figure included in the official announcement of February 12, 2026.
How does this directly affect the average citizen?
The elimination of the 2009 hazard determination is not an abstract legal change, but a decision with concrete effects on the daily lives of millions of people. By weakening the legal basis for limiting emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, it reduces the federal government’s ability to intervene in problems that science and medical experts have linked to public health impacts.
Medical and public health organizations have warned about these risks. Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said that the end of the hazard determination “is a dark day for science and health” and that the decision “will result in more air pollution, more frequent and intense disasters, and a greater risk of disease, making lung health worse across the U.S.”
Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, stated that eliminating the determination “undermines decades of science and court rulings,” and that the action “will exacerbate the health threats we already see from climate change, such as heat waves, increased air pollution, and deadly wildfires.”
Katie Huffling, director of the Nurses Alliance for Healthy Environments, stated that rescinding the determination is “not only dangerous, but an attack on science and public health,” and that health professionals see “the human impact of climate change every day.”
Furthermore, several health coalitions have already filed lawsuits against the elimination of the determination because they believe the action “violates the legal mandate to protect against pollution that endangers public health and well-being.”
Eliminating the hazard determination effectively eliminates the primary legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases at the federal level. The measure is already facing lawsuits from health and environmental organizations, while experts warn of potential impacts on air quality and public health.
