气候变化监管的“心腹之患”

我是Helene Cooper，为《纽约时报》报道美国军队新闻。此刻我正坐在五角大楼外停车场的车里。多年来，我在大楼内有一个带办公桌的工位，但特朗普政府已经收回了这个权利。掌权者一直以来都在给记者的工作制造困难。

I'm Helene Cooper. I cover the US military for The New York Times. So I'm sitting in my car in a parking lot outside the Pentagon. I had a cubicle with a desk inside the building for years, but the Trump administration has has taken that away. People in power have always made it difficult for journalists.

过去我们从未被阻止，现在也不会被阻止。我会继续努力向你们传递事实真相。没有《纽约时报》订阅用户的持续支持，这一切都无法实现。

It hasn't stopped us in the past. It's not gonna stop us now. I will keep working to get you the facts. This work doesn't happen without subscribers to The New York Times.

来自《纽约时报》，我是Michael Bilbaro。这里是《The Daily》栏目。在大幅削减旨在应对气候变化的法规，并停止为监测气候变化的科学家提供资金之后，特朗普政府现在采取了迄今为止最大胆的行动。它正在取消政府应对气候变化的核心科学结论。今天，我的同事Lisa Friedman将讲述这一科学结论的历史、它的作用以及一旦失去它会发生什么。

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Bilbaro. This is The Daily. After rolling back a slew of regulations aimed at reversing climate change and pulling funding for the scientists who monitor it, the Trump administration is now taking its boldest action yet. It's eliminating the scientific finding at the heart of the government's ability to fight climate change in the first place. Today, my colleague, Lisa Friedman, on the history of that finding, what it did, and what happens once it's gone.

今天是星期四，7月31日。

It's Thursday, July 31.

嗯，感谢Aaron。很高兴能与在座各位一起参与这一件非常重大的事情。这是一个非常重大的宣布。如果最终确定，今天的声明将成为美国历史上最大的放松监管的举措。

Well, thank you to Aaron. It's great to be here with, all of you for what is a a very big deal. It's a very big announcement. If finalized, today's announcement would amount to the largest deregulatory action in the history of The United States.

Lisa，首先我想请你为我们还原一下几天前举行的新闻发布会的情景。

Lisa, just to start, I wonder if you can set the scene for us of this news conference that occurred just a couple of days ago.

当然。周二，环保署署长Lee Zeldin前往印第安纳波利斯一家卡车经销商处，宣布了他称之为美国历史上最重要的放松监管行动之一。这标志着开始实施一项计划，即撤销所谓的“危害认定”（endangerment finding）。

Sure. On Tuesday, Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, traveled to Indianapolis to a truck dealership to make what he called one of the most significant acts of deregulation in American history. And what this was was the beginning of a plan to roll back something called the endangerment finding.

而那个

And that

我发现

finding Which I have

我得承认，我以前从未听说过。

to confess. I've never heard of.

尽管很多人没有这么做，但这一危害认定是美国从汽车、发电厂、油气井等来源监管温室气体排放的法律和科学依据。

Many people haven't, but the endangerment finding is the legal and scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gases in The United States from automobiles, from power plants, from oil and gas wells and more.

制定规则。我们将有一个公众意见征询期，而上一次危害认定是在过去十多年前进行的，当时并没有这样的公众意见征询。

Rule making. We are going to have a public comment period, one that has not taken place on the endangerment finding over the course of the last decade and a half.

我们是怎么走到这一步的呢？回到2007年2月，最高法院在一个名为马萨诸塞州诉环保署的案件中裁定，温室气体，包括二氧化碳、甲烷等属于污染物，如果它们对人类健康和福祉构成威胁，环保署就可以对其进行监管。

And how did we get here? Back in 02/2007, the supreme court ruled in a case called Massachusetts versus EPA that greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, others are pollutants, and that the EPA can regulate them if they pose a danger to human health and welfare.

嗯。

Mhmm.

因此，奥巴马政府在2008年上台后，开始回答这个问题：气候变化是否确实对美国人的健康和福祉构成威胁？

And so the Obama administration, when it came in in 02/2008, set about to answer that question, does climate change indeed endanger human health in America?

嗯，他们是怎么做的呢？

Mhmm. And how do they do that?

他们编制了一份超过200页的报告，全面审视了大量证据。回顾到2008年2月那个时期，政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）——联合国最高科学机构刚刚发布了迄今为止最全面的一套信息，确认气候变化是由人类活动引起的，并阐述了它所带来的威胁。报告对这些内容进行了分析，同时也参考了布什政府时期的美国科学家所整理的关于气候变化威胁的研究成果。内容涵盖了日益频繁且强度增加的野火及其烟雾对人类健康的影响，到气候变化加剧的区域臭氧污染增加等各类问题。

They compiled a report of more than 200 pages looking at the wealth of evidence. And, you know, taking you back to that time, 02/2008, the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's top scientific body had just recently established the most comprehensive set of of information to that date on establishing that climate change is caused by human activities and the dangers that it poses. It went through that. It went through findings that US scientists under the Bush administration had compiled about the threats of climate change. Everything from the way that increased and more intense wildfires and the smoke from wildfires affects human health to the increases in regional ozone pollution that are exacerbated by climate change.

嗯。

Mhmm.

基于这些证据，奥巴马政府得出了相当明确的结论：气候变化及其进一步推动气候变化的排放行为，确实对人类健康和福祉构成了威胁。

And based on this evidence, the Obama administration determined pretty conclusively that climate change and the emissions that are furthering climate change cause a danger to human health and welfare.

明白了。所以这就是它被称为‘危害认定’的原因。

Got it. So that's why it's called

危害性认定。

The endangerment finding.

危害性认定。因为他们得出了温室气体排放造成危害的结论。

The endangerment finding. Because they put together a finding of endangerment from greenhouse emissions.

没错。

Precisely.

好。那么奥巴马政府编制并撰写这份200页报告的反应如何？

Okay. And what is the reaction to the Obama administration compiling and writing this 200 page report?

最初遇到了强烈的反对。化石燃料行业非常担忧，商会也非常担忧。人们担心联邦政府会开始监管唐恩都乐连锁店、小企业和教堂以及犹太教堂的排放，那么这种监管到哪里才是个头呢？

There's initially a tremendous amount of pushback. The fossil fuel industry is deeply concerned. The chamber of commerce is deeply concerned. There are worries that the federal government will start regulating emissions from Dunkin' Donuts and small businesses and churches and and synagogues. And where is it going to stop?

任何向空气中排放物质的人。没错。嗯嗯。

Anyone who puts anything into the air. Exactly. Mhmm.

曾有人试图阻止和推翻这项危害性认定，但这些努力在法庭上失败了。但很快，这种温室气体对美国人构成威胁的认定，就成为了美国政府在气候变化问题上的官方立场。

And there were efforts to block and to overturn the endangerment finding, and those failed in court. But pretty soon, this finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to Americans becomes the official position of the US government when it comes to climate change.

你之前说过，这项认定是监管的基础。那么，一旦奥巴马政府完成了这项认定，通过了法院审查，并基本上使其正式生效后，会由此出台什么样的监管措施？

And you had said that the finding is foundational to regulation. So what kind of regulations spin out of this endangerment finding once the Obama people have compiled it, gotten it through the courts, and basically made it official?

这项危害性认定所带来的是美国历史上首批也是最重要的气候监管措施之一。

So the things that flow from the endangerment finding were some of the first and most important climate regulations that The United States ever had.

今天，我们在此宣布美国清洁能源计划。

Today, we're here to announce America's Clean Power Plan.

人们可能听说过清洁能源计划。

Folks might have heard of the Clean Power Plan.

这个计划历经两年制定，是美国在应对全球气候变化斗争中所采取的最重要的一项举措。

A plan two years in the making and the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.

这项计划旨在减少美国电力行业和发电厂的排放，控制石油和天然气井泄漏产生的甲烷，以及限制汽车尾气排放。环保署之所以能够采取这些措施，是因为有危害性认定的支持，并且最初在奥巴马政府时期开始大规模实施。

That was an effort to reduce emissions from the utility sector, from power plants in The United States, reducing methane from leaks from oil and gas wells, restrictions on automobile tailpipe emissions. These are all things that the EPA was able to do because of the endangerment finding and initially under the Obama administration started to do in a big way.

据我回忆，这些法规是非常广泛的。当时《每日新闻》刚刚开始陆续发布相关内容，我们当时正在与煤炭行业的人士交流，他们认为这项法规将逐步终结燃煤发电厂产业。

And as I recall, these were very sweeping regulations. The Daily had just started to come out, and we were talking to people in the coal industry, for example, about how this regulation was going to, over time, end the coal powered electric plant industry.

这完全正确。尽管其中一些法规在法院遇到了阻碍，但由于危害性认定的存在，监管的基本权力仍然得以保留。再往后过了一段时间，全球在气候变化问题上的讨论氛围发生了实质性的转变。

That's absolutely right. But even though some of these regulations faced setbacks in the courts, the fundamental ability to regulate, that retained because of the endangerment finding. So fast forward just a short time. The global discourse on climate change has really, really shifted.

今天，世界正式迈过了《巴黎协定》生效的门槛。

And today, the world has officially crossed the threshold for the Paris Agreement to take effect.

奥巴马政府当时正积极推动一项全球协议，这项努力最终在2015年形成了《巴黎气候变化协定》。

The Obama administration is actively working toward a global agreement, which by 2015 would become the Paris Agreement on climate change.

如果我们能够切实履行《巴黎协定》所体现的承诺，历史可能会将其视为我们星球的一个转折点。

And if we follow through on the commitments that this Paris Agreement embodies, history may well judge it as a turning point for our planet.

石油行业在华盛顿的代表——美国石油学会也承认了气候变化问题，并公开表示支持诸如碳定价这样的解决方案。

The oil industry in in Washington, the American Petroleum Institute, acknowledged climate change and put itself on record as embracing solutions like a price on carbon.

没错。在那个时刻，似乎在气候变化问题上出现了科学界的共识、政府监管和工业界接受之间的松散一致，即使这种接受是勉强的。

Right. There seemed to be in this moment when it came to climate change, a loose alignment of scientific consensus, government regulation, and industry acceptance, even if it was grudging acceptance.

对于那些承认气候变化紧迫性并希望看到世界朝着解决方案迈进的人来说，这确实是一个高潮。

It was really a high point for people who acknowledge the urgency of climate change and wanted to see the world move towards solutions.

嗯。

Mhmm.

然后特朗普当选总统，他立即针对奥巴马时期的多项能源和气候措施展开行动。他发布了一项行政命令要求进行审查，最终削弱了清洁能源计划。他还在关注甲烷排放监管、汽车尾气排放监管。当时有很多讨论，他是否会废除‘危害认定’（endangerment finding）。

Then Trump is elected, and he immediately takes aim at any number of Obama era energy and climate efforts. He issues an executive order to review, and and they ultimately weaken the clean power plan. He's looking at methane regulations, auto emission regulations. And there is a lot of talk about whether he will repeal the endangerment finding.

总统有多认真地考虑过做这件事？

And how seriously does the president consider doing that?

嗯，这件事最终没有发生。我们和其他媒体曾报道，当时美国环保署（EPA）认为，这既不是一场他们在法律上能打赢的仗，也不是一场他们在科学上能打赢的仗。有趣的是，我认为这种态势至今仍然存在：2009年时对‘危害认定’感到担忧的商界，到2016年时已经不再热衷于对抗这件事。我们当时采访了商会和其他大型商业团体，几乎所有人都表示‘不’。

Well, it didn't happen. And we and others reported that the EPA at that time made the decision that it was not a legal fight that it felt it could win. And it wasn't a science fight that they felt they could win. Interestingly, and I think this dynamic still holds, the business community that back in 2009 had been so worried about the endangerment finding, by 2016, had really lost an appetite for fighting it. We talked at the time to the chamber of commerce, to other large business trade groups, and pretty much all of them at the time said, well, no.

现在这个问题已经尘埃落定了。我们不喜欢监管，我们希望对其中一些监管措施做出修改。但承认气候变化危险性的这个基础

This is settled now. We don't like regulations. We'd like changes to some of these regulations. But this underlying foundation for acknowledging the dangers of climate change

他们接受这一点了。

They're okay with that.

他们当时已经接受这一点了。

They were okay with it.

所以这进一步说明了‘危害认定’确实已经根深蒂固。是的，嵌入进去了。直到它不再存在。

So this furthers the idea that the endangerment finding is really here to stay. Yeah. Embedded. Until it wasn't.

直到它不再存在。

Until it wasn't.

我们马上回来。

We'll be right back.

你好，我是克莱尔·坦尼斯凯特。我是每周《The Daily》片尾字幕中你听到的众多名字之一。作为制作人的主要工作内容之一，就是与同事和《纽约时报》的记者们交流，获取他们对新闻的专业见解。但我们也希望挖掘新闻背后的人性一面。

Hi. I'm Claire Tennisketter. I'm one of the many names you hear in the list of credits on The Daily every week. A big part of my job as a producer is talking to my colleagues, to New York Times reporters, to get their expertise on the news. But we also wanna explore the human side of the news.

因此，我的另一项重要工作就是与人们交谈，了解他们如何经历世界上正在发生的事情。这可能意味着走上街头与行人交谈、打冷门电话，甚至花费数月时间确保我们呈现故事的各个方面。无论是关于什么塑造了我们的政治身份，还是我们如何应对危机，我们始终觉得，这些对话总能让我们有所收获。经常有听众告诉我们，正是这类故事让《The Daily》与众不同，我们也希望继续为你带来这样的内容。而没有订阅者的支持，这一切都无法实现。

And so another big part of my job is talking to people about how they're experiencing what's happening in the world. That can mean walking up to people on the street, making cold calls, and spending months making sure we represent all sides of the story. Whether it's about what shapes our political identities or how we're coping with crises, we always feel like there's something to learn from these conversations. We often hear from listeners that these types of stories are what makes The Daily special, and we wanna keep bringing them to you. We can't do that without subscriber support.

如果你还没有订阅《纽约时报》，可以访问 nytimes.com/subscribe 进行订阅，谢谢。

If you haven't subscribed to The New York Times, you can do that at nytimes.com/subscribe, and thanks.

丽莎，在特朗普总统今年重返办公室并针对这一危害性认定采取行动之前，在他两届任期中间，当然还有拜登总统，值得一提的是，拜登将应对气候变化作为优先事项，并在这方面取得了很大进展。

Lisa, before president Trump returns to office this year and targets this endangerment finding, in the middle of his two terms, of course, we have president Biden, who it seems worth briefly mentioning makes regulating climate change a very big priority and gets a lot done on that front.

没错。拜登政府在四年任期内，确实将应对气候变化作为其工作的核心部分，并加强了许多奥巴马时期的法规。它推出了非常严格的汽车尾气排放标准，旨在推动国家从燃油车向电动车过渡。

Absolutely. The Biden administration really made addressing climate change a signature part of its work over the four years, and it strengthened many of the Obama rules. It put forward very aggressive automobile emissions rules that were designed to transition the nation away from gas powered cars and toward electric vehicles.

没错，这是一个巨大的变化。

Right. A huge change.

非常大的变化。它对燃煤电厂和新建燃气电厂实施了严格监管，并对甲烷排放制定了新的严格规定。所有这些措施之所以能够实施，都是基于这一危害性认定。我认为在拜登政府执政的四年里，这一危害性认定并未以任何公开方式被提及。但所有这些监管措施之所以成为可能，归根结底都是基于这一认定。

Huge. It imposed very strict regulations on coal fired power plants and new gas plants, new strict regulations on methane emissions. All of these things were happening because of the endangerment finding. I think in the four years of the Biden administration, the endangerment finding didn't come up in any overt way. But all of these regulations were fundamentally made possible because of this finding.

没错。因此，拜登总统的任期感觉像是强化了这样一种理念：美国整体的发展方向是朝着监管排放、并试图通过政府手段减少排放的方向前进。当然，特朗普打破了这一趋势，但拜登又将其带回正轨。总体感觉是，这仍然是目前国家所处的方向。

Right. And so the Biden presidency feels like a reinforcement of this idea that the overall arc of where The United States is going is this journey toward regulating emissions and trying to use the government to reduce them. I mean, clearly, Trump broke from that, but Biden brings it back. And the sense is this is directionally still where the country's at.

完全正确。因为从奥巴马、特朗普到拜登，尽管第一任期的特朗普政府推广化石燃料、削弱监管，但他们从未攻击过这个基本认知。正如你所说，这一认知到目前为止实际上已经根深蒂固了。气候变化是真实存在的，它是由人类活动引起的，正在对地球造成威胁，而这些威胁正在危及人类的生命和福祉。

Exactly. Because, you know, through the course of Obama, Trump, and Biden, as much as the first Trump administration promoted fossil fuels, weakened regulations, they never attacked this fundamental understanding, which, like you said, has really become, by this stage, kind of embedded. That climate change is real. It's driven by human activity. It is causing threats to the planet, and those threats are endangering human life and welfare.

那么谈谈第二任期的特朗普政府如何确定一项策略，试图撤销温室气体危害性认定。

So talk about how the second Trump presidency settles on a strategy of trying to deembed the endangerment finding.

特朗普的第二个任期完全是另一番景象。在整个2024年竞选期间，特朗普本人不仅对监管措施态度更为强硬，对气候变化科学的攻击也更加激烈。他开玩笑说，气候变化导致的海平面上升意味着人们可以拥有更多的海滨地产。他非常明确地表示，退出《巴黎协定》不会有任何争议。他称这将是上任第一天就要做的事，而事实也的确如此。

The second Trump administration is a whole new ballgame. Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump himself had been much more aggressive in attacking not just regulations, but climate change science. He joked that climate change that, you know, sea level rise means that people have a little bit more beachfront property. He made it very clear that there would be no debate over pulling out of the Paris Agreement. That was going to be a first day activity, and it was.

没错，因为他在第一个任期内已经退出了。拜登又让我们重新加入，而特朗普说，我要再次退出。

Right. Because he had pulled out in his first term. Biden put us back in, and he's like, I'm gonna pull us out again.

正是如此。所以你知道，当谈到像温室气体危害性认定这样的问题时，特朗普在竞选期间并没有公开谈论过这个问题。但他在上任第一天就签署了一项行政命令，要求环保署署长就该危害性认定的合法性及适用性提出建议。

Exactly. So, you know, when it came to something like the endangerment finding, Trump didn't talk about the endangerment finding on the campaign trail. But on his first day in office, he signed an executive order ordering the EPA administrator to make a recommendation about the legality and applicability of the endangerment finding.

换句话说，他非常明确地将这一问题列为目标。没错。那接下来发生了什么？

In other words, he makes very clear that he has this in his sights. Precisely. And what happens next?

接下来的事情就是在幕后进行的。环保署并没有对这一过程提供太多透明度。当初负责制定危害性认定的职业员工几乎完全被排除在这一过程之外。谁在具体负责这件事，既没有正式宣布，也不清楚。

So what happens next is behind closed doors. Right? The EPA does not offer really any visibility into their process. EPA career staff that had created the endangerment finding in the first place were pretty much shut out of the process. It was never announced or really very clear who exactly was working on this.

但大约一周前，我们首次报道了这项计划的细节。

But about a week ago, we reported the first details of the plan.

你太谦虚了，是你率先报道了这个消息。

You're being modest. You you broke the story.

谢谢。我们报道说，环保署确实计划废除温室气体危害性认定，并正在为此构建法律依据。

Thank you. We reported that the EPA indeed planned to repeal the endangerment finding and was building a case to do that.

丽莎，你之前提到过，在奥巴马首次正式发布温室气体危害性认定时，法院曾多次驳回对此的挑战。所以当特朗普政府决定要废除这项认定时，他们有什么法律依据来这么做呢？

Well, Lisa, you had said that courts kept rejecting challenges to the endangerment finding when Obama first made it official. So when the Trump people decide that they're gonna get rid of it, what legal basis do they have for getting rid of this?

这无疑会遭到挑战。但环保署提出了多个论点以及替代论点。你知道，一位法律学者对我说，这就像扔出一堆意大利面，看看哪些能粘到法院身上。其中一个论点是空气污染是地方性的，他们认为环保署没有权力针对全球气候变化进行监管。

This is undoubtedly going to get challenged. But the EPA is making a series of arguments and alternative arguments. You know, what one legal scholar described to me as throwing a bunch of spaghetti to see what sticks with a court. One of its arguments is that air pollution is local, and they argue that the EPA doesn't have the authority to regulate in response to global climate change.

所以他的论点基本上是说气候变化是一种国际现象，它带来的危险并非来自任何一个具体的地方。因此，美国不能只监管本地的排放源。

So his argument is basically that climate change is a international phenomenon that creates dangers that are not from any one location. Therefore, The US can't regulate just the local sources of it.

没错。另一个论点是，监管成本应该纳入危害认定的考量之中。对吧？在做出认定时，环保署不仅应考虑对人类健康的成本，还应考虑诸如高监管成本如何影响消费者、是否会剥夺消费者选择权等因素。

Exactly. Another argument it's making is that the cost of regulation should be part of the endangerment finding. Right? Then when when making the finding, EPA should not just look at the cost to human health, but also things like how do high regulatory costs impact consumers? Does it deny them consumer choice?

它是否因让消费者继续使用老旧车辆而损害了公众健康？这是一个我们以前从未在环保署的论点中见过的新说法。嗯嗯。他们还提出，即使维持危害认定不变，环保署也不应制定温室气体排放标准，因为无论我们采用什么技术，都无法真正解决全球气候变化的问题。

Does it worsen their public health by keeping older cars on the road? That's a new argument that we hadn't seen an EPA make before. Mhmm. One other thing they argue is that even if the endangerment finding stayed in place, they're saying that the EPA shouldn't set standards on greenhouse gas emissions because no matter what technology we apply, we can't make a dent in the problem of global climate change.

暂且不谈这些法律论点，我很好奇，在你的报道中，你发现白宫决定推翻这一认定，而正如你在这次对话中清楚解释的那样，业界其实已经不再反对这一认定了。你已经说明他们已经转变了立场，接受了关于气候变化的大量科学共识，并相应调整了商业计划。那么，如果你真的追问特朗普政府的人，他们为什么要这么做？是为了满足那些最极端的右翼气候问题思想者吗？

Putting aside those legal arguments, I'm curious why in your reporting, you have found that the White House has decided to go after a finding that, as you have explained very clearly in this conversation, the industry doesn't really want anymore. You've made clear that they have moved on. They have accepted a lot of the scientific consensus around climate change and adjusted their business plans accordingly. So if you really pin the Trump people down, why are they doing this? Is it to satisfy the hardest right thinkers on climate?

还是出于其他原因？

Is it something else?

在很大程度上，这确实是为了满足一个特定的群体。撤销危害认定一直是许多否认气候变化的团体所追求的目标。因此，特朗普推动撤销这一认定，实际上是在回应这些团体的要求，即彻底剥夺政府应对气候变化的监管能力。

To a large extent, this is about satisfying a constituency. Repealing the endangerment finding has been the holy grail of a lot of groups that deny climate change. And so what Trump is doing in moving to repeal this is really satisfying a request to pull root and stem the ability to regulate climate change from the government.

当然，这一切并不是孤立发生的。没错。这是特朗普第二任期政府更广泛推动改变环保署的性质、工作人员构成及其职能的一部分。你能简要地将撤销危害认定放在这个更大的背景中解释一下吗？

And, of course, this isn't happening in a vacuum. Correct. Yeah. It's part of a larger push by the second Trump administration to change what the EPA is, who works there, what it does. Can you briefly put rescinding the endangerment finding into that larger context?

尽管撤销危害认定意义重大，而且确实非常重要，但它只是我们当前看到的一个更大故事的一部分。本届政府正在削减用于研究气候变化及其影响的科学资源，正在取消帮助美国人应对和增强对气候变化适应能力的项目。因此，在各个层面，都在努力将气候变化从联邦政府中剔除出去。

As significant as repealing the endangerment finding is, and it is very significant, it's part of a larger story that we see right now. This administration is taking away science to study climate change and the impacts. It is eliminating programs that help Americans prepare for and build resilience to climate change. So at every level, there is an effort to remove climate change from the federal government.

回想起来，废除危害认定似乎连接了美国气候变化讨论中的两个截然不同的时刻：它最初是在奥巴马总统任期内建立的，而现在它正在被废除。当初制定时，美国社会在应对气候变化的重要性上已经达成了日益广泛的共识，包括产业界、政府和公众舆论。但现在，我觉得整体氛围已经不同了，包括公众意见在内，甚至民主党也已不再将气候变化作为优先事项之一。你觉得这个观察对吗？

It feels, upon reflection, like getting rid of the endangerment finding bookends two very different moments in the climate change conversation in The United States when it was created back in the Obama presidency and and now that it's coming down. When it was created, the country had reached this growing consensus about the importance of taking on climate change, industry, government, public opinion. But now and I wonder what you think about this. It feels like the overall mood is different, and that includes public opinion. And it includes Democrats setting aside climate change as a major priority.

我们是否基本上可以认为，这个国家目前对气候变化问题的紧迫关注已大不如前？

Are we basically seeing in this bookend moment a country that's just not as urgently invested in climate change?

我认为这种说法部分确实准确。显然，美国在气候变化及其应对措施上日益分裂。例如，我们看到共和党人对风能和太阳能的支持率下降。但我也不认为环保活动人士或立法者正在撤回他们对气候变化问题的应对行动。

I think part of that is really accurate. Clearly, the country is increasingly divided on both climate change and the solutions to climate change. Right? We've seen, you know, support for wind and solar, for example, drop among Republicans. But I also don't think that we're seeing a walk back by either activists or lawmakers from addressing climate change.

他们所奋斗的一切都正受到攻击。毫无疑问，这场运动正处于被动状态，正在寻找新的前进方向。但我认为你仍然可以看到，大多数美国人，如皮尤调查和其他民调所显示的那样，承认气候变化的存在，对气候变化感到担忧，并希望政府采取某种形式的行动，尽管在具体该采取什么措施上还存在很大分歧。

Everything that they had fought for is is under attack. And there's no doubt that, you know, this movement is is on its back heels and trying to figure out what a new way forward would be. But I think you still see, you know, that the majority of Americans, you know, and and the Pew polls and others show this, acknowledge climate change, are concerned about climate change, and want the government to take some kind of action that there is a lot of dispute about what.

那么，我们在此结束之前，打个比方，当初制定‘危害认定’时，它确立了应对气候变化的轨迹和前景，明确指向了控制排放和应对气候变化的方向。作为我们顶尖的气候记者之一，我很想知道，当它被撤销后，这将确立什么样的新方向。

Well, just to end here, in the same way that the endangerment finding codified a trajectory and an outlook on climate change when it was created that was definitely in the direction of regulating emissions and fighting climate change. I'm curious as one of our leading climate reporters, what you think it's being rescinded and removed will codify next.

我认为，当这场法律斗争尘埃落定之后——在‘危害认定’被正式废除后，势必会有一场重大的法律斗争——我认为问题最终将回到国会。我们之所以在监管方面出现如此反复，根本原因在于目前并没有一部法律明确要求减少大气中的碳排放。因此，我认为这才是未来将要面对的核心问题。

I think when the dust clears on this legal fight, and there will be a big legal fight after the repeal of the endangerment is finalized, I think the question is going to come back to Congress. The reason we have had all of this whiplash with regulations in the first place is because there is no law explicitly mandating the reduction of carbon emissions in the atmosphere. And so that's the question that I think is going to be at the forefront.

不是说哪些行政措施会被保留或撤销、来回变动，而是立法机构是否最终会决定认真处理这个问题。因为只有通过立法，才能实现真正的长期改变。

Not which executive actions stay or get removed and toggle back and forth, but whether the legislative branch ever decides that this is something that it wants to tackle. Because that's how it actually becomes permanent.

没错。我们应当记得，制定‘危害认定’的奥巴马政府其实也希望由国会来解决气候变化问题。当国会未能通过当时被称为总量控制与交易制度的重大气候法案时，他发表了一次演讲，表示如果国会不采取行动，他就会采取行动。从那时起，民主党和共和党总统交替执政，监管政策也就随之反复变化。

Yeah. It's worth remembering that Obama, whose administration created the endangerment finding, he wanted Congress to be the one to act on climate change. When Congress failed to pass a big climate law, at the time it was called cap and trade, he gave a speech where he said, you know, if congress doesn't act, I will. So it's been regulatory whiplash from Democrat and Republican presidents ever since.

说到反复变化，是否存在这样一种可能：未来的总统在另一轮政策摇摆中重新恢复‘危害认定’？

Well, speaking of whiplash, is there a world where future president brings the endangerment finding back in another case of whiplash?

这是一个关键问题。这取决于法院在这次诉讼中最终如何裁决。从理论上讲，未来的总统确实有可能恢复‘危害认定’，但这需要很长时间。重建科学依据和法律依据都需要大量时间，而将其转化为实际的减排法规更是需要更长时间。现实情况是，摧毁‘危害认定’比重新建立它要容易得多。

It's a big question. And depending on how a court rules once this is challenged, yes, in theory, a future president could restore the endangerment finding, but it would take a lot of time. It would take a long time to rebuild the scientific record, the legal record, and it would take even more time to turn that into a regulation to actually start to reduce emissions. So the reality is, I mean, it's easier to kill the endangerment finding than it is to build it back up.

阿里萨，非常感谢你。我们非常感激。

Alisa, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

非常感谢。

Thanks so much.

我们马上回来。以下是今天你需要了解的其他情况。周三，美联储违背特朗普总统的意愿，将利率维持在当前水平，但其管理委员会表达了不同意见，这种现象极为罕见。有两位委员公开反对这一决定，这是二十多年来的首次。投反对票的两位理事都是特朗普总统任命的，他多次要求美联储降低利率，并曾嘲笑美联储主席杰伊·鲍威尔未能满足这一要求。

We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve defied president Trump by keeping the interest rate at its current level, but faced a highly unusual level of dissent from its governing board. Two members of the board publicly disagreed with the decision, something that has not happened in more than twenty years. Both dissenting governors were appointed by president Trump, who has repeatedly demanded that the Fed lower interest rates and has mocked Fed chairman Jay Powell for failing to do so.

此外，前副总统卡马拉·哈里斯表示，她不会参加明年加州州长的竞选，从而结束了数月来关于她是否会参选的猜测。自从去年秋天在总统大选中败给唐纳德·特朗普后，哈里斯一直在考虑竞选加州最高职位。但她的朋友表示，她仍有可能在2028年第三次竞选总统。今天的节目由悉尼·哈伯、卡洛斯·普列托和阿斯塔·乔塔尔文制作，由蕾克西·刁和克里斯·哈克尔编辑，配乐由丹·鲍威尔、阿里西亚巴·埃蒂普和帕特·麦卡斯克创作，录音工程师是阿莉莎·莫克斯利。

And former vice president Kamala Harris said that she will not run for governor of California next year, ending months of speculation about whether or not she would enter the race. Harris had been exploring a run for the state's top office since losing the presidential race against Donald Trump last fall. But Friends said that she has left open the possibility of running for president for a third time in 2028. Today's episode was produced by Sydney Harbour, Carlos Prieto, and Asta Chautarveni. It was edited by Lexi Diao and Chris Haxel, contains original music by Dan Powell, Aliciaba Etyp, and Pat McCusker, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley.

我们的主题音乐由Wonderley的吉姆·布伦德伯格和本·兰斯弗克创作。今天的内容就到这里。我是迈克尔·拉瓦尔，明天见。

Our theme music is by Jim Brundberg and Ben Lansferk of Wonderley. That's it for the day. I'm Michael LaVar. See you tomorrow.