The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially moved to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a move that effectively strips the federal government of its primary legal obligation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The decision, announced by Administrator Lee Zeldin, has triggered immediate condemnation from environmental organizations, scientific bodies, and the outdoor industry. Protect Our Winters (POW), a leading advocacy group representing the "Outdoor State"—the 181 million Americans who participate in outdoor recreation—has responded by calling for the immediate resignation of Administrator Zeldin. The repeal marks a significant shift in federal environmental policy, dismantling the scientific and legal framework that has underpinned nearly two decades of climate-related regulations.
The Legal and Scientific Significance of the Endangerment Finding
To understand the magnitude of the EPA’s recent action, it is necessary to examine the history and function of the Endangerment Finding. Established in December 2009, the finding was the EPA’s formal response to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that landmark case, the Court determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) meet the definition of "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act. Consequently, the Court ruled that the EPA must determine whether these emissions endanger public health or welfare.
The 2009 finding consisted of two distinct parts. First, the "Endangerment Finding" itself concluded that the current and projected 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 of these GHGs from new motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
By repealing this finding, the EPA is essentially arguing that the scientific consensus regarding the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions is either insufficient or no longer applicable for regulatory purposes. This move creates a legal vacuum, as the Endangerment Finding was the prerequisite for nearly every federal climate regulation, including fuel economy standards for vehicles, methane limits for oil and gas operations, and carbon emission caps for power plants.
Chronology of the EPA’s Shift Under Administrator Lee Zeldin
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is viewed by many as the culmination of a rapid series of deregulatory actions initiated since January 2025. Following the change in administration and the appointment of Lee Zeldin, the EPA has pivoted from an agency focused on mitigation and enforcement to one prioritizing the interests of the fossil fuel sector.
In January 2025, the agency began a comprehensive review of existing air quality standards, signaling a retreat from the stringent limits established in previous years. By February, the EPA had paused the implementation of several methane reduction programs, citing the need for "regulatory flexibility" for domestic energy producers. In March, the agency moved to weaken the "Good Neighbor Plan," which regulates cross-state smog pollution, a move that public health experts warned would lead to thousands of additional premature deaths and hospitalizations annually.
The April announcement of the Endangerment Finding’s repeal represents the most aggressive step to date. Unlike previous policy shifts that targeted specific industries or pollutants, this action attacks the foundational legal authority of the EPA to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Legal analysts suggest that this is a strategic move designed to insulate the agency from future lawsuits that would compel it to regulate carbon emissions.
The "Snow Drought" and the Climate Crisis in the American West
The call for Zeldin’s resignation by Protect Our Winters comes at a time when the physical impacts of climate change are increasingly visible, particularly in the American West. Scientific measurements and satellite data from the early months of 2025 show that winter snowpack across the Sierra Nevada and the Rocky Mountains is at historically low levels for this time of year.
Meteorologists have termed this phenomenon a "snow drought." It is characterized not necessarily by a lack of total precipitation, but by unusually high temperatures that cause precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow. In many high-altitude regions that historically maintain a deep snowpack through late spring, current levels are less than 40% of the long-term average.
The implications of a depleted snowpack extend far beyond the ski industry. The Western United States relies on mountain snowpack as its most critical reservoir. It functions as a natural storage system, slowly releasing water during the spring and summer months to feed rivers, sustain high-yield agriculture in valleys, and provide the flow necessary for hydropower generation. When the snowpack is thin, water supplies tighten, leading to mandatory rationing in urban areas and reduced crop yields for farmers. Furthermore, the lack of moisture in high-elevation forests significantly lengthens the wildfire season, creating tinderbox conditions that threaten both wilderness areas and rural communities.
The Economic Impact on the Outdoor State
Protect Our Winters emphasizes that the EPA’s actions represent an "existential threat" to the outdoor recreation economy. This sector is a major driver of the American economy, contributing approximately $1.2 trillion annually to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It supports over 5 million jobs and accounts for nearly 2% of the total U.S. workforce.
The outdoor economy relies on predictable seasonal patterns and the preservation of natural resources. In states like Colorado, Utah, and Montana, winter tourism is the lifeblood of local economies. A "snow drought" translates directly into lost revenue for gear manufacturers, hospitality services, and transportation sectors. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the outdoor recreation economy grew faster than the overall U.S. economy in recent years, but that growth is contingent on the stability of the very environment the EPA is now failing to protect.
"An EPA that ignores science and dismantles the tools designed to protect public health and the environment cannot fulfill its mission," POW stated in its call for Zeldin’s resignation. The organization argues that by prioritizing short-term fossil fuel interests, the agency is actively sabotaging a $1.2 trillion industry that depends on clean air, clean water, and stable winters.
Reactions from Stakeholders and Policy Experts
The repeal has drawn sharp criticism from a broad coalition of stakeholders. Tribal nations, whose water rights and traditional lands are directly impacted by changing hydrological cycles, have expressed profound concern over the loss of federal protections. Environmental lawyers are already preparing for what is expected to be a protracted legal battle.
"The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act," said one senior legal analyst at a prominent environmental law center. "To reverse a finding based on decades of peer-reviewed science, the agency must provide a reasoned explanation backed by new evidence. Simply wanting to deregulate the fossil fuel industry does not meet the legal threshold for changing a scientific determination."
Conversely, some representatives from the oil and gas industry have cautiously welcomed the move, suggesting that it provides "regulatory certainty" and reduces the compliance costs associated with federal overreach. They argue that the EPA should focus on "technological innovation" rather than "punitive mandates." However, even within the corporate sector, voices are divided. Several major multinational corporations, including those with significant investments in renewable energy, have expressed concern that the lack of federal climate leadership will make U.S. markets less competitive globally as other nations move toward decarbonization.
Broader Implications and Future Outlook
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding has global implications. As the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States’ retreat from climate regulation undermines international efforts like the Paris Agreement. It signals a shift toward isolationism in environmental policy, which could weaken global cooperation on climate mitigation and adaptation.
Domestically, the burden of climate action will likely shift to the states. California, New York, and Washington have already signaled that they will maintain their own stringent emission standards and may seek to fill the regulatory void left by the EPA. This could lead to a fragmented "patchwork" of regulations across the country, creating complications for manufacturers and interstate commerce.
The call for Lee Zeldin’s resignation highlights the growing tension between the federal government’s current direction and the realities of a changing climate. As communities across the country grapple with the tangible effects of warming—from the "snow droughts" of the West to the intensified hurricanes of the Atlantic—the role of the EPA remains a central point of contention.
The upcoming legal challenges will likely reach the Supreme Court, providing a test for the current judicial philosophy regarding the "Major Questions Doctrine" and the extent of agency authority. In the meantime, the scientific community continues to warn that the window for meaningful action to prevent the most catastrophic impacts of climate change is closing. The repeal of the Endangerment Finding, according to its critics, is a step in the wrong direction at a time when the stakes have never been higher.
As of this report, the EPA has not issued a formal response to the call for Administrator Zeldin’s resignation. The agency maintains that its recent actions are consistent with its commitment to "balancing environmental protection with economic growth." However, for the millions of Americans who depend on the outdoor economy and the stability of the natural world, that balance appears increasingly lopsided.
