The Trump administration’s move to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 endangerment finding, which classifies greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane as dangerous pollutants, could have profound implications for American agriculture. This policy shift, currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget, aims to dismantle a cornerstone of federal climate regulations, potentially freeing farmers from restrictive mandates while raising questions about the future of “green” initiatives in the sector. At the heart of this debate is a fundamental truth: natural atmospheric gases like CO2, exhaled by humans and animals and essential for plant growth, should not be labeled as pollutants. This article explores the potential repercussions for American farmers, the fate of carbon capture pipelines and climate-smart agriculture grants, and the cautionary tale of European farmers crippled by overzealous climate regulations.
Reclaiming Common Sense: CO2 Is Not a Pollutant
CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, integral to the biological processes that sustain life. Humans and animals exhale it, while plants, including the crops that form the backbone of American agriculture, rely on it for photosynthesis. Labeling CO2 as a “dangerous pollutant” under the Clean Air Act has always been a contentious overreach, driven by regulatory agendas rather than scientific reality. The 2009 endangerment finding, rooted in the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, empowered the EPA to regulate CO2 and methane emissions, imposing burdensome rules on industries, including agriculture.
For farmers, these regulations have translated into costly compliance measures, from monitoring methane emissions from livestock to navigating restrictions tied to energy use and land management. Reversing the endangerment finding would recognize the absurdity of treating a life-sustaining gas like CO2 as a toxin, potentially easing these regulatory burdens and allowing farmers to focus on productivity rather than bureaucratic red tape.
Impacts on American Farmers
Reduced Regulatory Burdens: The EPA’s endangerment finding has been the foundation for rules targeting emissions from agricultural operations, such as methane from cattle digestion and nitrous oxide from fertilizer use. Removing CO2 and methane from the list of regulated pollutants could eliminate costly reporting requirements, such as those under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which currently affects thousands of industrial facilities and could extend to large farms. This would free up resources for farmers, particularly small and mid-sized operations, who often lack the financial cushion to absorb compliance costs. Lower operational costs could translate into more competitive pricing for crops and livestock, bolstering rural economies.
Energy Cost Savings: Agriculture is energy-intensive, relying on fuel for machinery, irrigation, and transportation. The EPA’s climate rules, tied to the endangerment finding, have driven up energy costs by prioritizing less reliable “green” energy over affordable “fossil” fuels. By removing these restrictions, the Trump administration aims to “unleash American energy,” potentially stabilizing or reducing fuel and electricity costs for farmers. This could enhance profitability, especially for energy-intensive operations like grain drying or greenhouse farming.
Land Use Flexibility: Climate regulations often dictate land use practices, such as mandating cover crops or restricting tillage to sequester carbon. Without the endangerment finding, farmers could regain flexibility to make decisions based on soil health, crop yields, and market demands rather than federal mandates. This autonomy is critical in a sector where local conditions vary widely, and one-size-fits-all policies often backfire.
The Future of “Green” Initiatives in Agriculture
The EPA’s potential policy shift raises questions about the future of climate-focused agricultural programs, many of which hinge on the endangerment finding’s regulatory framework.
Carbon Capture Pipelines: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) pipelines, designed to transport CO2 from industrial sources to underground storage, have been a contentious issue in rural America. Farmers in states like Iowa and Illinois have resisted these projects, citing concerns over eminent domain, land disruption, and safety risks from potential pipeline leaks. If CO2 is no longer classified as a pollutant, the justification for these pipelines diminishes, potentially halting their expansion. This could protect farmland from being repurposed for infrastructure that offers little direct benefit to farmers, preserving arable land for food production.
Climate-Smart Agriculture Grants: The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act allocated billions for climate-smart agriculture, including grants for practices like precision farming, cover cropping, and methane capture from livestock. These programs, while marketed as environmentally friendly, often come with strings attached—complex application processes, ongoing compliance costs, and questionable returns on investment. If the EPA reverses the endangerment finding, funding for these grants could be redirected or eliminated, as their legal basis under the Clean Air Act weakens. Farmers may lose access to these subsidies but gain freedom from associated regulatory oversight, allowing them to prioritize practices that align with economic realities over ideological goals.
Other “Green” Initiatives: Initiatives like electric vehicle mandates for farm equipment or renewable energy requirements for rural communities could also face scrutiny. The Trump administration’s broader deregulation agenda, including plans to repeal vehicle emissions standards, suggests a shift away from forcing farmers to adopt costly, unproven technologies. This could slow the push for electrification in agriculture, where battery-powered machinery often lacks the reliability and power needed for heavy-duty tasks.
Lessons from Europe: A Cautionary Tale
European farmers offer a stark warning of what happens when climate regulations run amok. In the European Union, stringent climate policies, including the Farm to Fork Strategy and carbon taxes, have imposed crushing costs on farmers. Dutch farmers, for instance, face mandates to reduce livestock numbers by up to 30% to meet nitrogen and methane emissions targets, threatening their livelihoods and sparking widespread protests. In Ireland, similar policies have pushed farmers to cull cattle, driving up food prices and undermining rural economies. These regulations, often justified by the same logic as the EPA’s endangerment finding, prioritize abstract climate goals over food security and economic stability.
The result? European farmers are caught in a vise of rising input costs, reduced yields, and shrinking profit margins. In 2024, EU agricultural output dropped significantly, with some regions reporting 20-30% declines in production due to regulatory pressures and extreme weather events misattributed to human activity. American farmers, already grappling with tight margins and global competition, risk a similar fate if climate regulations continue unchecked. The EPA’s potential reversal could prevent the U.S. from following Europe’s path, preserving agriculture as a viable industry.
A Balanced Perspective
Critics of the EPA’s move argue it could undermine efforts to address extreme weather events, like the 2024 wildfires in Los Angeles or Hurricane Helene, which some attribute to climate change. However, the claim that CO2 drives catastrophic weather lacks conclusive evidence when viewed against long-term data, which shows no significant increase in storm or fire activity over the past century. Moreover, the U.S. contributes a small fraction of global emissions, and unilateral restrictions on American farmers do little to influence worldwide trends while hampering domestic food production.
The EPA’s reconsideration of the endangerment finding is not without risks. Legal challenges are likely, given the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act’s affirmation of greenhouse gases as pollutants. Courts may uphold the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, which mandates regulation unless the EPA can prove greenhouse gases pose no harm or provide a “reasonable explanation” for not regulating. Still, the Trump administration’s legal strategy, focusing on agency discretion rather than scientific denial, may navigate these hurdles, offering farmers relief from overregulation.
Conclusion: A Win for Farmers, A Blow to Bureaucracy
The EPA’s potential removal of greenhouse gases from the list of dangerous pollutants could be a lifeline for American farmers, freeing them from costly and unscientific regulations. By recognizing that CO2 and methane are natural components of life, not toxins, the policy shift aligns with the realities of agriculture, where plants thrive on CO2 and livestock naturally produce methane. The decline of carbon capture pipelines and climate-smart grants may disrupt short-term funding but will empower farmers to make decisions based on practicality, not ideology. Europe’s experience serves as a stark reminder: overzealous climate policies can devastate agriculture, threatening food security and rural livelihoods. As the Trump administration pushes for deregulation, American farmers stand to gain a competitive edge, ensuring they can feed the nation without the weight of bureaucratic overreach.