In a big move that could reshape environmental regulations across the United States, the Trump administration has repealed the 2009 Obama-era Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. This EPA decision, announced by Administrator Lee Zeldin, declares that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide no longer pose a threat to public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. Originally established to justify federal controls on emissions from vehicles and other sources, the finding has been the cornerstone of climate policies for over a decade. Its repeal is hailed by supporters as the largest act of deregulation in U.S. history, potentially saving billions in compliance costs. For the agricultural sector, this shift promises significant benefits but also raises questions about the future of subsidies, biofuels, and emerging technologies like carbon capture.
The endangerment finding empowered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks, and power plants, indirectly affecting farmers through higher costs for fuel, equipment, and energy. By revoking it, the administration aims to promote fossil fuel production and reduce energy prices, aligning with calls for “energy abundance.” Farmers stand to gain from lower diesel and electricity bills, as the push for renewables like wind and solar, which is often blamed for grid instability, takes a backseat to reliable coal and natural gas. This could ease the financial strain on operations during harsh weather, such as the recent cold snaps that highlighted fossil fuels’ role in preventing blackouts.
One clear benefit for farmers is the potential reduction in equipment costs. Mandatory Tier 4 diesel emission standards, which include systems to curb pollutants, have added tens of thousands of dollars to the price of tractors and other machinery. While the repeal specifically targets greenhouse gas rules for vehicles and engines, it could pave the way for broader rollbacks in emission requirements for heavy-duty and off-road equipment used in farming. Advocacy groups like the Nebraska Farm Bureau have welcomed this, arguing that it removes unnecessary burdens without compromising air quality for criteria pollutants like nitrogen oxides.
This leads to speculation about Diesel Exhaust Fluid, or DEF, which is injected into diesel engines to reduce harmful emissions. DEF has become a staple in modern farm equipment to meet stringent standards, but its use adds ongoing costs for refills and maintenance. If the repeal leads to relaxed rules on vehicle and engine emissions, DEF could indeed become less essential or even obsolete in future models. However, since the proposal retains controls on traditional pollutants, any changes might be gradual. Still, farmers tired of dealing with DEF-related downtime and expenses could see this as a win, freeing up resources for other investments.
On the subsidy front, the repeal might signal the end of many “green” incentives tied to climate goals. Programs that reward low-carbon farming practices, such as cover cropping or precision agriculture, often rely on the recognition of greenhouse gases as a threat. With the endangerment finding gone, federal funding for these initiatives could dry up, shifting priorities toward traditional agricultural supports. This might hurt operations that have adapted to earn payments for carbon sequestration, but it could also eliminate bureaucratic hurdles and allow farmers more flexibility in their methods.
The biofuels industry, a lifeline for many corn and soybean growers, faces uncertainty. The Renewable Fuel Standard promotes ethanol and biodiesel partly because they reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels. Without the need to regulate those emissions, the justification for mandating biofuels weakens, potentially reducing demand and crop prices. Groups like the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association warn that this could make it harder for farmers to monetize sustainable practices under tax credits like 45Z. On the flip side, lower fossil fuel costs might offset some losses by reducing input expenses.
Carbon capture and storage projects, including pipelines that transport CO2 from ethanol plants to underground sites, are particularly vulnerable. These initiatives have gained traction as a way to lower emissions and qualify for incentives, with farmers sometimes leasing land for pipelines or benefiting from sequestration payments. If greenhouse gases are no longer deemed hazardous, the economic rationale for these projects evaporates, potentially halting expansions and nullifying carbon markets. Facilities like those operated by ADM in Illinois could see their operations scaled back.
Livestock producers might breathe easier, as the repeal eliminates the lingering threat of a “cow tax” on methane emissions from animals. Factory farms, often criticized for pollution, could face fewer restrictions on expansion, allowing for increased production without added regulatory costs. Environmental groups argue that this ignores the real harms of climate change, such as droughts and extreme weather that threaten agriculture.
Overall, the repeal represents a double-edged sword for agriculture. It promises deregulation and cost savings that could boost profitability in the short term, especially for those reliant on diesel machinery and fossil fuels. Yet, it risks undermining markets for biofuels and green technologies that have become integral to farm income. As the dust settles, farmers will need to adapt to a landscape where energy abundance trumps climate mandates, potentially fostering innovation in traditional practices while sidelining others. For now, this policy shift underscores a return to prioritizing economic growth over environmental constraints in the agro sector.