On February 12, President Donald Trump and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced what they called the largest deregulation in U.S. history in the White House’s Roosevelt Room.
The EPA finalized a rule that removes the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding. The Obama administration created this finding, and it gave the federal government the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act for more than a decade.
The new rule also removes all federal greenhouse gas standards for cars, trucks, and engines built from model year 2012 through 2027 and beyond. In addition, the EPA ended compliance credits tied to certain technologies, including start-stop systems.
In short, the administration rolled back the key rule that supported federal climate regulations on vehicles.
The Role of the 2009 Endangerment Finding
In 2009, the EPA said that six major greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide—harm public health and the environment. The agency concluded that these gases drive climate change and damage air quality. That decision gave the federal government the authority to set emission limits for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. It also supported climate rules for power plants and the oil and gas industry.
Because of this finding, the EPA introduced several greenhouse gas standards over the past decade. These rules shaped vehicle design, fuel economy targets, and broader climate policy across multiple sectors.
Why the EPA Repealed It Now
In 2025, the Trump administration began reviewing the 2009 decision. Officials argued that some of the science behind the finding was weaker than originally believed. They also said earlier climate projections were too pessimistic.
Now that the repeal is final, the EPA says it no longer has authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases the way it did before. The agency believes Congress—not federal regulators—should decide major climate policy.
EPA leaders say this move restores a strict reading of the law and ends what they call regulatory overreach. Critics strongly disagree. Many scientists and public health experts argue that the repeal removes an important tool that protects Americans and helps address climate change.
Most importantly, the EPA estimates the final rule will save more than $1.3 trillion. It removes requirements for automakers to measure, report, certify, and comply with federal greenhouse gas standards. The agency says the rollback will lower vehicle prices, expand consumer choice, and reduce transportation costs for families and businesses.
Administrator Zeldin commented,
“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans. Referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’ the Endangerment Finding is now eliminated. The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream. As EPA Administrator, I am proud to deliver the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history on behalf of American taxpayers and consumers. As an added bonus, the off-cycle credit for the almost universally despised start-stop feature on vehicles has been removed.”
U.S. Emissions Trends in 2025: Mixed Signals
At a climate crossroads, the United States saw a rebound in greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 after years of overall decline. According to estimates from the Rhodium Group, total U.S. emissions rose about 2.4% in 2025, reaching roughly 5.9 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent—139 million tons higher than in 2024. This uptick ended a two‑year downward trend that had been driven by cleaner energy and transportation shifts.

Several factors pushed emissions higher: colder winter weather increased demand for heating; rising electricity demand from data centers and cryptocurrency mining boosted fossil fuel use; and higher natural gas prices led utilities to burn more coal. The power sector alone saw a 3.8% rise in emissions, while buildings’ emissions jumped 6.8%. Transportation emissions, the largest U.S. source, remained largely flat, increasing only modestly due to continued adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles.

Despite the 2025 increase, total emissions are still below pre‑pandemic levels and well under 2005 baselines—roughly 18% below 2005 levels—showing that long‑term trends toward decarbonization have not entirely reversed yet.
Preliminary sector data from Climate TRACE also indicates that U.S. emissions continued rising throughout 2025, adding more than 71 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent through the first three quarters of the year.
The EV Market in 2025: Growth and Slowdowns
In contrast to emissions trends, the U.S. electric vehicle (EV) market continued to grow in 2025, though the pace and dynamics evolved. EVs made notable gains in sales and market share, reflecting both consumer demand and industry transitions.
In the first quarter of 2025, nearly 300,000 battery‑electric vehicles were newly registered, marking over a 10% year‑over‑year increase. EVs accounted for about 7.5% of all new car registrations during that period.
By the third quarter, sales surged again. Cox Automotive reported that EV sales jumped nearly 30% year‑over‑year, pushing EV market share to a record 10.5% of total vehicle sales in Q3 2025—a milestone reflecting strong consumer uptake in several segments.

Even so, EV adoption remains far from dominating the U.S. market. Estimates show that electric vehicles comprised around 8–10% of total U.S. new car sales in 2025, with internal‑combustion engine vehicles still accounting for the large majority of the fleet.
Tesla remained the largest EV brand in the U.S. in 2025, holding about 46% market share, though this marked a slight decline from previous years. Rivals like Chevrolet and Hyundai grew their shares, reflecting broader model availability and shifting consumer preferences.
Market analysts also project that by 2025, the U.S. EV market’s size, sales, and technology focus will continue expanding—with battery‑electric vehicles expected to dominate EV segments. The broader EV market size had substantial growth in 2025, with further expansion expected toward the end of the decade.

Balancing Regulation, Consumer Choice, and Emissions Goals
EPA officials say that removing federal GHG standards and related compliance credits will lower vehicle costs by about $2,400 per car. This will ease financial pressure on families and businesses and give buyers more choice. The agency calls it a step toward restoring the American Dream, making transportation more affordable without high regulatory costs.
Supporters argue the rollback removes artificial mandates, letting automakers and consumers focus on market-driven solutions. The EPA also ended “off-cycle” credits, which allowed carmakers to meet emission targets with minor technology changes. Critics called these credits gimmicks with little real environmental benefit.
Litigation and Future Policy
Environmental groups, scientists, and several states sharply criticized the move. They warn that it weakens climate action, public health protections, and emission reductions. Many fear that removing these rules while emissions are rising could set back U.S. climate goals.
Legal challenges are expected, with lawsuits likely to block or reverse the repeal. As federal rules change, state policies, corporate commitments, and Congress may play a larger role. Some states have already set carbon standards and EV incentives, creating a patchwork of climate policies across the country.
In conclusion, the 2026 repeal of the GHG Endangerment Finding marks a major shift in U.S. climate policy. With emissions rising and clean technology markets evolving, the country faces tough choices about balancing economic growth, innovation, and climate risk. The coming years will be shaped by lawsuits, state leadership, private investments, and the global move toward low-carbon economies.
- INTERESTING READ: Princeton Study Shows How Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” Derails U.S. Climate Goals
The post Trump EPA’s Largest Climate Deregulation: What the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” Repeal Means for U.S. Emissions and the EV Market appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
Carbon Footprint
Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
![]()
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits

