The Impact of Trump's Recision of the Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases on California's Air Pollution Regulations

California is facing a complex and new legal battle over the regulation of CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases. As a result, previous federal approvals for California to have stricter regulations may be disallowed. 

Photo Credit: California Air Resources Board (ARB)

The Trump administration recently rescinded the Endangerment Finding - something that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously made that showed - on a legal and scientific basis - that carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases were a danger to public health. This new move is one of the more significant changes in environmental policy that the United States government has ever made.

So how does this affect California?

1. EPA previously granted federal "waivers" to California to allow it to set air quality standards more stringent than federal ones. By removing the endangerment finding, EPA now can argue that California has no legal need or authority to regulate CO2 to protect its citizens.

2. California's existing laws remain in place, however, their enforceability may no longer exist should EPA's removal of the endangerment finding survive legal challenges. As a result, the requirements in California laws like AB32 (The Global Warming Solutions Act) may not be allowed.

For example. one such requirement that may not be allowed is California's mandate that all new cars sold in the state be zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

3. The endangerment finding repeal also raises questions as to the legal basis for limits on stationary sources such as power plants and other industries. Certain industry groups may now sue, arguing that state rules are now preempted by federal regulations.

4. All of the above moves environmental regulation into the courtroom, for an undetermined amount of time. California is preparing a legal challenge that the endangerment repeal ignores years and years of proven climate science and legal decisions.

5. Businesses will now face years of uncertainty - do they need to follow federal regulations or California regualtions while they wait for what could be years for a final legal determination to be made?

6. California may attempt to reclassify CO2 under state health codes/laws, thereby bypassing federal regulations. Even if California does that, such a move would surely be challenged by the current federal adminstration.

What do you think about this? Please leave your comments, pro or con, below.

Trump ignores science and uses a shaky legal argument to repeal EPA's previous greenhouse gas regulations

Today, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary and the objections of many, President Donald Trump's EPA finalized a rule that repeals the agency's previous decision that greenhouse gases endangered public health and welfare. By doing so, Trump reverses actions the EPA has taken to regulate the emissions of such pollutants.

As a result of this ruling, Trump's EPA can argue that it no longer has the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases and the resultant global warming/climate change impacts they have. Additionally, EPA will now finalize the repeal of existing regulations that required strict tailpipe emission standards for cars and light trucks. 

The decision is destined to be challenged by numerous groups, however, using some of the following arguments:

1. The ruling is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

2. Previous U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007) established that greenhouse gases are air pollutants subject to regulation by the EPA if they are found to endanger public health.

3. Today's decision is based on a shaky legal argument that ignores existing climate science that should result in challenges by experts in the field.

4. A slim possibility exists that Congress could develop a new law specifically directing EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, this will be practically impossible as long as Trump remains in power and his supporters maintain majorities in the House and Senate.

The Day the Earth Caught Fire - a prescient vision from 65 years ago?

This a bit different from our usual posts. We recently watched an old British sci-fi film that has a strikingly familiar relationship to the world today.

Here's a synposis. Please comment if you agree or disagree that many of the points in this film are similar to what is happening to our world today, both environmentally and politically.

Movie Poster Credit: IMDB, Fair Use

Released in 1961, The Day the Earth Caught Fire is a classic British science-fiction disaster film that manages to feel both like a vintage Cold War relic and a startlingly modern cautionary tale.

Movie Summary

The story is told through the eyes of Peter Stenning, a cynical, hard-drinking journalist for the Daily Express in London. After the United States and the Soviet Union simultaneously detonate massive nuclear bombs, the world begins to experience freakish weather: monsoons in the desert, massive fogs, and a relentless, skyrocketing heatwave.

Stenning and his colleague Bill Maguire discover a terrifying truth the government is trying to suppress: the dual explosions were so powerful they knocked the Earth 11 degrees off its axis and altered its orbit, sending the planet spiraling toward the Sun. As London withers under a "heat mist" and water rationing leads to riots, scientists prepare a last-ditch effort to "kick" the Earth back into orbit with more nuclear detonations. The film ends on a famously ambiguous note, showing two prepared newspaper headlines: "World Saved" and "World Doomed," while the sound of church bells (in the US version) or silence (in the original) leaves the outcome to the viewer’s imagination.

---

Comparison to Modern Climate Change

While the film’s "nuclear-induced orbit shift" is scientifically impossible, its depiction of a planet in environmental freefall resonates deeply with today's climate crisis.

• Human-Caused Catastrophe: Both the film and modern climate change share the central theme of anthropogenic (human-caused) disaster. In 1961, the fear was that our technology (nuclear weapons) would destroy us instantly; today, the fear is that our technology (fossil fuel reliance) is destroying us gradually.
• The "Slow Burn" of Panic: The movie masterfully depicts the transition from "it’s just a weird summer" to "the world is ending." This mirrors the current global experience, where what was once dismissed as "unusual weather" is increasingly recognized as a systemic, existential threat.
• Government Obfuscation: A major plot point involves the British government downplaying the severity of the crisis to prevent panic. This echoes modern frustrations regarding political "greenwashing" or the slow pace of governmental response to climate data.
• Social Breakdown and Resource Scarcity: The scenes of water rationing, dried-up rivers (like the Thames in the film), and social unrest are no longer just sci-fi tropes but are mirrored in real-world droughts and climate-driven migration today.
• The "Technological Fix": The film concludes with the hope that the very thing that caused the problem (nuclear bombs) can solve it. This parallels modern debates over geoengineering—the idea that we might use large-scale technological interventions to "fix" the atmosphere we’ve damaged.

"Perhaps in the next few hours, there will be no remembrance of the past, and no hope for the future... All the works of Man will be consumed in the great fire out of which he was created." — The Day the Earth Caught Fire

It’s a haunting film that definitely sticks with you—especially that final shot of the two conflicting newspaper headlines. It’s rare for a 60-year-old movie to feel more relevant today than it did upon its release.

Here's a link to the original movie trailer: The Day the Earth Caught Fire

Our thanks to Google's Gemini for its asistance in summarizing the above.

See an air pollution problem in California? Here is who to call.

Have you ever wondered who to call if you notice a disturbing air pollution problem? No matter where you live in California, here is a list of every air pollution control agency in the state.

Photo Credit: Cal EPA

California has a total of 35 local air districts which are generally responsible for regional planning, monitoring, and permitting of stationary sources. These districts are overseen at the state level by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which also oversees mobile source air pollution. Additionally, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees federal aspects of pollution control. California is part of EPA's Region IX.

Below is the complete list of California's air pollution control agencies and their official websites.

California Air Pollution Control Districts (APCD/AQMD)

Air District	Official Website
Amador County APCD	amadorair.org
Antelope Valley AQMD	avaqmd.ca.gov
Bay Area AQMD	baaqmd.gov
Butte County AQMD	butteairquality.com
Calaveras County APCD	calaverasgov.us
Colusa County APCD	countyofcolusa.org
Eastern Kern APCD	kernair.org
El Dorado County AQMD	edcgov.us/airqualitymanagement
Feather River AQMD	fraqmd.org
Glenn County APCD	countyofglenn.net
Great Basin Unified APCD	gbuapcd.org
Imperial County APCD	apcd.imperialcounty.org
Lake County AQMD	lcaqmd.net
Lassen County APCD	lassencounty.org
Mariposa County APCD	mariposacounty.org
Mendocino County AQMD	mendoair.org
Modoc County APCD	modoccounty.us
Mojave Desert AQMD	mdaqmd.ca.gov
Monterey Bay Air Resources District	mbard.org
North Coast Unified AQMD	ncuaqmd.org
Northern Sierra AQMD	myairdistrict.com
Northern Sonoma County APCD	nosonomaair.org
Placer County APCD	placerair.org
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD	airquality.org
San Diego County APCD	sdapcd.org
San Joaquin Valley APCD	valleyair.org
San Luis Obispo County APCD	slocleanair.org
Santa Barbara County APCD	ourair.org
Shasta County AQMD	shastacounty.gov
Siskiyou County APCD	co.siskiyou.ca.us
South Coast AQMD	aqmd.gov
Tehama County APCD	tehcoapcd.net
Tuolumne County APCD	tuolumnecounty.ca.gov
Ventura County APCD	vcapcd.org
Yolo-Solano AQMD	ysaqmd.org

SJVAPCD Healthy Air Living Kids’ 2026 Calendar now available for free

Every year the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) asks student artists in grades K-12 to submit drawings with clean air themes for its Healthy Air Living Kids' Calendar Contest.

Photo Credit: SJVAPCD

The winners for next year's calendar have been selected and the 2026 calendar is now available for a free download here or by contacting the SJVAPCD at  public.education@valleyair.org

Entries for the 2027 contest may be submitted until September 26, 2026.

New Public Meeting scheduled for CARB's GHG Reporting and Financial Risk Disclosure Initial Regulation

As we noted in a previous post, due to certain court decisions, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) had to delay implementing some of the requirements of recently adopted California regulations that pertain to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the reporting of the financial risks associated with them by certain corporations operating in California. 

Photo Credit: CARB website

To address that, CARB has scheduled a new public meeting to consider adopting final reporting regulations for February 26, 2026, at 9:00 A.M., with a continuation to the next day if needed.

The public comment period will begin on December 26, 2025. Written comments may be submitted on or after that date with a deadline of February 9, 2026, representing a 45-day public comment period. (CARB is providing extra time for the public to review everything because of the holidays.)

An agenda for the meeting has not yet been posted as of today, however, it will be available at this link at least 10 days before the meeting: Public Agenda

The proposed final regulations were submitted to the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) today, December 9, 2025. These and all of the rulemaking documents are available for review on CARB's website at this link: Rulemaking Documents 

CARB postpones GHG Financial Risk report deadline due to court order.

As we noted in an earlier article, certain California businesses were required to submit a Climate-Related Financial Risk Report by January 1, 2026, as required by Senate Bill SB261 and the California Health and Safety Code. 

Photo Credit: AI image generated by Google Gemini, Fair Use

However, this requirement has been postponed until further notice as a result of a successful legal challenge by the California Chamber of Commerce. On November 18, 2025 - the same date as a CARB scheduled public workshop on this and related reports - the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction against enforcement of this requirement as a result of other appeal proceedings related to it. 

Those proceedings will not be held until January 9, 2026, after the January 1, 2026 deadline.

CARB will provide further information and a new reporting date once the appeal process is completed. Additionally, no enforcement action will be taken for failure to submit the report by the original date.

In the meantime, CARB has stated that they will accept voluntary reports as of today, Dec. 1, 2025

Smog, particulates, greenhouse gases, or hazardous wastes - what are your priorities?

Ok folks - many of us got into the environmental arena/profession because we were tired of seeing black smoke coming out of smokestacks. Others because we were tired of not being able to see the mountains we lived by because the smog was so thick. Some people were concerned about oil spills and hazardous wastes being dumped where they shouldn't be. Some of us are old enough to remember the Cuyahoga River catching fire in Ohio! And still others woke up when all of the alarm bells about global warming started ringing.

Photo credit: ©Frank J. Maccioli

How about you? What got you interested in the environment? Let us know by answering the questions below:

1. What first got you interested in the environmental field?

2. Is your focus of concern on one area over another or all of the above?

3. If it came down to economics, how would you prioritize spending? For example, would you favor a higher priority on reducing the pollutants that cause smog (which may only impact certain geographical areas) or focusing on controlling greenhouse gases because that's a world-wide problem? 

4. Do you have any other thoughts?

Please comment below. We are VERY interested in how you feel about this!

False alarm - Ventura lifts Do Not Use Water order

As we previously noted in an earlier post, residents and businesses in the Pierpont area of Ventura, CA, were notified by city officials earlier this week not to use or drink their water due to gasoline contamination.

Photo Credit: City of Ventura

However, that order has been officially lifted as of Wednesday, November 26, at 12:15 PM. City officials now say the water is safe to drink and that the original order was made due to a false positive for gasoline during routine testing.

Subsequent tests on several additional water samples have shown no such contamination. According to the city, the laboratory doing the testing, Eurofins Calscience, explained the false positives were caused by "carryover from unrelated high-concentration samples tested earlier in the batch. Reanalysis (and analysis of additional new samples) showed no detection of gasoline."

In short, Eurofins Calscience said the contamination of the Pierpont samples was due to contamination from samples from another, unrelated site that were done before the Pierpont samples were analysed. Retesting showed no contamination. 

Such an error does raise questions about quality control procedures during the analysis of samples from different sites.

You can see Eurofin Calscience's explanation here: False Positive letter from Eurofin Calscience to Ventura 

Thanksgiving Environmental Disaster in Ventura - drinking water supply contaminated with gasoline

Ventura city officials warned residents of the Pierpont neighborhood today not to use their tap water because it may be contaminated with gasoline. The neighborhood (see map below) consists of several blocks of residential housing and other structures located between Ventura Harbor and the Ventura Pier.

Pierpont area affected by gasoline contamination.

Photo Credit: City of San Buenaventura, CA

Officials said traces of gasoline were found in the city's water supply between Monmouth Way and Harbor Boulevard. A "DO NOT USE" order was issued for residents in the area. The gasoline was detected by existing monitoring wells in the vicinity.

Until the order is lifted, those in the affected area were urged not to use tap water for drinking, cooking, washing hands, bathing, or irrigation. Boiling, freezing, filtering, or other disinfection methods will not make the water safe according to the city.

Approximately 900 water customers have been affected, mostly residential customers, however, about 16 commercial customers and the Pierpont elementary school were also affected.

Until the city notifies residents that the water is safe to drink, only bottled water should be used in the affected area. The city said 5 gallons per day of potable water per family will be made available at the city's maintenance yard at 336 Sanjon Road. Water may be picked up there 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

New California Corporate GHG and Financial Risk Reporting Workshop

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) will be holding a virtual public workshop on California's new Greenhouse Gas and Financial Risk reporting programs on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, at 9:30 AM - 12:30 PM PST.

Photo credit: CARB

CARB will be providing updates on rule development for the new programs, which were authorized by state legislation in 2023 and 2024.

In short, certain companies that do business in California will be required to report their Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the prior fiscal year. Additionally, companies will be required to publish biennial climate-related financial risk reports.

The GHG reports apply to companies with total annual revenues in excess of one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000). The financial risk reporting will apply to companies with annual revenues of at least $500 million.

Scope 1 and 2 reports are due on an as yet unspecified date in 2026. The first financial risk reports are due on January 1. 2026. The due date for Scope 3 emissions has not yet been specified.

The definitions of Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions are:

Stationary Combustion (Scope 1): Emissions from combustion of fuels in stationary sources for generation of electricity, heat, or steam, e.g., boilders, furnaces, turbines.

Mobile Combustion (Scope 1): Emissions from the combustion of fuels in company owned/controleed mobile combustion sources, e.g., trucks, ships, airplanes, and cars.

Process Emissions (Scope 1): Emissions from manufacture or processing of chemicals and materials, e.g., cement, aluminum, and waste processing.

Fugitive Emissions (Scope 1): Emissions from intentional or unintentional releases, e.g., equipment leaks from joints, seals, or packing; methane emissions from coal mines and venting.

Location-based Method (Scope 2): This method reflects the average emissions intensity of grids on which energy consumption occurs (using grid-average emission factor data).

Market-based Method (Scope 2): This method reflects emissions from electricity that companies have purposefully chosen (using emission factor derived from contractual instruments).

Business related emissions from non-company sources (Scope 3): These include all business related emissions that are not Scope 1 or 2. These are emissions from related business organizations that are not directly owned or controlled by the reporting company. They include supply chain, transportation, product usage, business travel, purchased goods, waste generated, and the use of sold products. Sometimes referred to as value chain emissions, they are very difficult to calculate and, perhaps even moreso, to reduce.

Anyone in the public may participate in this virtual workshop by registering at this link: CARB Workshop Registration