A key architect of the 1970 Clean Air Act, Thomas Jorling, disagrees with the Trump administration’s claim that the law doesn’t allow regulation of greenhouse gases. Jorling argues the legislation was intentionally written to be flexible, anticipating future scientific discoveries about pollutants. This debate now lies at the heart of the administration’s efforts to weaken environmental regulations across the US.
The Original Intent
The Clean Air Act was drafted in an era when climate change wasn’t fully understood, but Jorling and his colleagues knew science would progress. The bill was designed to adapt to new pollutants without requiring constant Congressional intervention. Lawmakers, including Republicans, insisted on a future-proof law: they didn’t want to revisit Congress every time a new threat emerged.
The EPA’s Reversal
In February, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which established that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health. This effectively dismantled federal authority to regulate emissions from vehicles and power plants. The decision has triggered legal challenges from Democratic states and environmental groups, with the case likely headed to the Supreme Court.
A Bipartisan Legacy
Jorling’s position is starkly different from the modern Republican stance. However, he was a core advisor to Republican senators during the bill’s drafting in the 1970s. This bipartisan cooperation, once commonplace, is now rare in American politics. The 85-year-old Jorling, speaking from his home in Massachusetts, emphasizes that the law’s adaptability was deliberate, not accidental.
“We didn’t want to come back to Congress every time a new pollutant was discovered.”
The legal battle over the Clean Air Act’s scope is not just about regulations; it’s about whether a half-century-old law can effectively address 21st-century environmental threats. The outcome will reshape the future of US climate policy.
