终结美国气候法规的秘密计划

嘿。

Hey.

我是《The Athletic》的诺亚·切斯特纳特。

It's Noah Chestnut from The Athletic.

如果你喜欢比赛和体育，注意听了。

If you're into games and sports, pay attention.

我来给你四个体育术语。

I'm gonna give you four sports terms.

你告诉我它们的共同点。

You tell me the common thread.

准备好了吗？

Ready?

比赛、局、分、盘。

Game, match, point, set.

这个有点简单。

This one's kind of a gimme.

答案是网球的计分方式。

The answer is how tennis is scored.

你想挑战更难的吗？

Do you want more of a challenge?

试试《连接》体育版。

Check out Connections sports edition.

这是为体育迷打造的全新每日游戏。

It's a new daily game for sports fans.

现在要玩，请访问 theathletic.com/connections。

To play now, go to the athletic.com/connections.

来自《纽约时报》，我是迈克尔·比尔巴罗。

From the New York Times, I'm Michael Bilbaro.

这是《每日新闻》。

This is The Daily.

今天，特朗普政府将通过一项重大行动，取消自身应对气候变化的法律权力。

With a single monumental action expected today, the Trump administration will eliminate its own legal authority to fight climate change.

我的同事丽莎·弗里德曼在过去几周里，逐步梳理出一小群活动家如何将这一曾经看似不可能的目标变为现实的内幕故事。

My colleague, Lisa Friedman, has spent the past few weeks piecing together the inside story of how a small group of activists turned that once improbable goal into reality.

今天是2月12日，星期四。

It's Thursday, February 12.

丽莎，欢迎再次做客《每日新闻》。

Lisa, welcome back to The Daily.

谢谢。

Thank you.

感谢你邀请我。

Thanks for having me.

所以，丽莎，今年夏天你率先报道了特朗普政府计划撤销整个政府监管温室气体的法律依据。

So over the summer, Lisa, you broke the story that the Trump administration was planning to roll back the legal basis for the entire government's ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

请再为我们回顾一下，这个法律依据是什么，以及它的取消为何如此重要。

Just remind us what that legal basis was and why its elimination would be so consequential.

当然。

Sure.

这被称为‘危害发现’，你可以把它看作是美国监管气候污染物能力的脊柱。

It's called the endangerment finding, and you can think of it like the spine of America's ability to regulate climate pollutants.

国会从未明确授权环保署监管导致全球变暖的排放物。

Congress never explicitly told the EPA that it could regulate planet warming emissions.

但在2007年，最高法院在一项具有里程碑意义的裁决——马萨诸塞州诉环保署案中裁定，温室气体属于法律所定义的污染物。

But in 2007, the supreme court ruled in a landmark ruling, it's called Massachusetts versus EPA, that greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants under the law.

由于环保署有义务设定限制并监管有害污染物，法院告诉该机构：你们必须确定这些温室气体，如二氧化碳、甲烷等，是否对健康和福祉构成威胁。

And because EPA is required to set limits, required to regulate damaging pollutants, the court told the agency, you need to determine whether these greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, others, whether they endanger health and welfare.

是的。

Mhmm.

两年后，环保署依据大量科学证据，发布了如今被称为‘危害发现’的结论，认定六种温室气体确实对公共健康和环境构成威胁。

Two years later, the EPA, citing a massive body of scientific evidence, came out with what is now called the endangerment finding, that six greenhouse gases do pose a danger to public health and the environment.

因此应当受到监管。

And therefore should be regulated.

因此应当受到监管。

And therefore should be regulated.

所以，如果你把危害认定视为脊柱，那么正是它使得对汽车尾气、发电厂烟囱排放以及油气井泄漏的甲烷进行监管成为可能。

So if you think of the endangerment finding as the spine, that is what has allowed for regulations on carbon emissions from automobiles, from power plant smokestacks, methane from oil and gas well leaks.

而如果你像特朗普政府即将做的那样废除危害认定，那么就失去了依据。

And if you repeal the endangerment finding as the Trump administration is about to do, then there is no basis.

在美国，将不再有任何法律或科学依据来监管温室气体排放。

There is no legal basis or scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in The United States.

政府实际上放弃了其监管权。

The government essentially gives up its authority.

我不太想混用比喻，但当危害认定消失时，所有由此衍生的监管措施都会像纸牌屋一样轰然倒塌。

And not to mix metaphors, but when the endangerment finding goes away, all of these regulations that stem from it fall like a house of cards.

对。

Right.

在我们第一次对话时，当你第一次向我们的听众解释这一切时，丽莎，你告诉我，试图消除危害认定、从根本上削弱监管温室气体的法律框架，这些努力都是在幕后进行的。

And during our first conversation, when you first explained all this to our listeners, Lisa, you had told me that the efforts to eliminate the endangerment finding and to fundamentally defang the legal framework behind how we regulate greenhouse gases, all of that had unfolded behind closed doors.

当时很难理解这一切是如何发生的，以及谁参与了其中。

It was very hard to understand how it had happened and who was involved in it.

但如今，过了好几个月，你已经揭露了这场幕后行动究竟是怎样的，尤其是谁在背后推动了这些工作。

But now, all these months later, you have reporting on what exactly that behind the scenes effort looked like, and notably, who was doing this behind the scenes work.

所以，跟我们说说你发现了什么。

So tell us about what you found.

看到特朗普政府如此迅速而全面地推翻这一危害认定，着实令人震惊。

So it was pretty stunning to see how quickly and comprehensively the Trump administration moved to reverse the endangerment finding.

特朗普一上任，就在2025年1月早早采取行动，指示环保署重新审议这一认定。

As soon as president Trump got into office, it was one of the early moves in in January 2025 to tell the EPA to make a ruling on whether to reconsider this finding.

我们的调查表明，这并非偶然。

And what our reporting showed was this wasn't just an accident.

这也不是多年坚持终于取得成果的典型案例。

This wasn't just years of persistence coming to fruition.

这种事情在华盛顿时有发生。

That happens sometimes in Washington.

这一切之所以成为可能，是因为一小群受过高度专业训练的保守派律师，多年来秘密策划，只为等待共和党总统上台，一举摧毁政府应对气候变化的监管能力。

This was made possible by a very small group of highly trained conservative lawyers who had spent years working in secret to prepare for the moment when a Republican president could obliterate the government's ability to regulate climate change.

那么这些保守派律师究竟是谁？

So who are these people, these conservative lawyers you're talking about?

这要从两个人说起，曼迪·古纳塞卡拉和乔纳森·布雷特布尔。

It really starts with two people, Mandy Gunasekara and Jonathan Breitbull.

这

The

绿色新政不是一个认真的提案。

Green New Deal is not a serious proposal.

它读起来就像卡尔·马克思的圣诞愿望清单，而且是一个

It reads like Karl Marx's Christmas list and is a

一份苏联式的中央计划文件，要求政府接管农业、交通、住房和医疗保健部门。

Soviet style central planning document calling for a government takeover of the agricultural, transportation, housing, and health care sectors.

古纳塞卡拉长期以来一直反对气候政策，而不是反对气候变化本身。

Gunasekara has a very long history fighting climate policies, not climate change, climate policies.

她曾为吉姆·英霍夫参议员工作，后者写过一本名为《最大的骗局：全球变暖阴谋》的书。

She used to work for senator Jim Inhofe, who wrote a book called The Greatest Hoax, The Global Warming Conspiracy.

如果我们已经忘了，因为我们一直听说2014年是有记录以来最热的一年，我问了主席，你知道这是什么吗？

In case we have forgotten, because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, I asked the chair, you know what this is?

这是一个雪球。

It's a snowball.

有一天，他在二月的参议院地板上扔了一个雪球，以证明气候变化根本不存在。

And he one day threw a snowball on the senate floor in February to prove that climate change was not a thing.

这雪球就是从外面拿进来的。

And that just from outside here.

所以外面非常、非常冷，完全不合季节。

So it's very, very cold out, very unseasonal.

所以，主席先生，接着这个。

So here, mister president, catch this.

是的。

Mhmm.

冈纳塞卡拉就是那个把雪球递给他的人，这也是她在华盛顿广为人知的一件事。

Gunasekara is the the aide who handed him that snowball, and that's one of the things she's pretty well known for in in Washington.

她

She

她进入第一届特朗普政府，在那里她积极推动美国退出《巴黎协定》，而特朗普总统最终确实这么做了。

enters the first Trump administration where she is instrumental in pushing for The United States to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which president Trump eventually did.

是的

Mhmm.

在拜登政府期间，她强烈反对拜登政府为减少汽车和发电厂等排放所推行的政策。

During the Biden administration, she argued strenuously against policies that he put in place to reduce emissions from automobiles and power plants and the rest.

从第一天起，他就一直信守承诺，要‘关闭化石燃料’。

From day one, he's held true to that promise to, quote, shut down fossil fuel.

他和民主党已经采取了100多项措施，旨在使石油和天然气的开发与市场供应变得更加困难。

And he and the democrats have taken over 100 actions aimed at making it harder for oil and gas to be developed and delivered to market.

我们现在

We now

本质上是在主张，应对气候变化的政策比气候变化本身更具危害性。

Essentially making the argument that policies to address climate change are more harmful than climate change itself.

农民和美国民众真正应该担心的不是气候变化。

It's not climate change that farmers nor Americans should be worried about.

真正会造成更大损害的，是那些以气候变化为名推行的政策。

It's the policies being pushed in the name of climate change that stand to do far much more damage.

她试图废除危害认定的搭档是一位名叫乔纳森·布雷特布尔的律师。

Her partner in trying to repeal the endangerment finding was an attorney named Jonathan Breitbull.

最高法院即将面对的问题是，《清洁空气法》第111(d)条的限制范围究竟在哪里。

Before the supreme court will be the question of what limits exist in Clean Air Act section one eleven d one.

他曾在美国第一个特朗普政府的司法部任职。

He had served in the justice department under the first Trump administration.

我们接触过的每个人都形容他是一位非常敏锐的法律头脑，对《清洁空气法》和《清洁水法》了如指掌。

Everyone we have talked to has described him as a very sharp legal mind who really knows his way around the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act.

核心问题其实可以简洁地表述如下。

The hinge issue can really succinctly be stated as follows.

环保署是否有权根据其认为最可行的减排系统来确定排放标准，仅此而已。

Does EPA have the authority to determine the emissions rate based on what's achievable by what EPA thinks is the best system of emissions reduction, period.

并在法庭上主张，民主党政府在试图通过法规应对气候变化时严重越权。

And has made the argument in court that democratic administrations have really overreached in their efforts to impose regulations to address climate change.

他实际上是在处理危害认定的下游影响。

He was essentially dealing with the downstream effects of the endangerment finding.

试图理解其中包含的各种条款和指令，简直让人头晕目眩。

And it makes your head swim to try and parse through the various clauses and instructions that are contained there.

由于危害认定，环保署一直面临法规的反复摇摆。

Because of the endangerment finding, EPA has been dealing with a whiplash of regulations.

这些法规在民主党政府时期出台，在共和党政府时期被废除，整个过程中始终在法庭上争斗。

They have been created in democratic administrations, erased in republican administrations, and fought in courts the entire time.

嗯。

Mhmm.

撤销危害认定将彻底消除这一局面。

Withdrawing the endangerment finding eliminates the situation entirely.

这正是古纳塞卡拉和布赖特比尔计划要做的。

And that's what Gunasekara and Brightbill plotted to do.

他们具体是怎么操作的呢？

And how do they actually go about doing that?

所以，在2022年，古纳塞卡拉和布莱特比尔开始为一个大型新项目寻求资金。

So in the 2022, Gunasekra and Brightbill start seeking funding for a big new project.

他们想秘密开展一项行动，以废除危害性认定。

They want to create a secret operation to kill the endangerment finding.

他们向保守派组织进行了游说。

They pitched conservative organizations.

他们请求约200万美元，用于资助那些与主流科学观点相左的科学家开展科学研究。

They asked for about $2,000,000 for the ability to work on scientific studies and research from scientists who disagree with the mainstream science.

他们开始为废除危害性认定构建法律依据。

They would start laying out the legal case for repealing the endangerment finding.

所有这些举措都旨在供下一任共和党总统——他们希望是唐纳德·特朗普——上任第一天就立即使用。

All of these things were things that could be used by a next Republican president, they hoped Donald Trump, on day one.

他们最终从保守派组织——传统基金会——获得了资金支持。

They did eventually receive funding from a conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation.

遗产基金会后来主导了2025项目，成为下一任共和党总统的行动蓝图。

The Heritage Foundation would go on to lead project twenty twenty five, the blueprint for the next Republican president.

曼迪·古纳塞克拉为2025项目撰写了环保署章节。

And Mandy Gunasekra wrote the EPA chapter for project twenty twenty five.

所以，这两位律师——古纳塞克拉和布赖特比尔——确保了这一推翻环境监管、针对危害性认定的行动，被具有巨大共和党政治影响力的保守派智囊团——遗产基金会——所采纳。

So these two lawyers, Gunasekra and Brightbill, they are ensuring that this cause of rolling back environmental regulations of going after the endangerment finding that it gets taken up by a major conservative think tank in heritage with a ton of influence in Republican politics.

完全正确。

Exactly right.

与此同时，还有另外两位知名度更高的律师，他们各自独立工作，致力于推翻危害性认定。

Then in tandem, we have two other lawyers, much more high profile figures, who are working in their own right to bring down the endangered finding.

那他们是谁？

And who is that?

拉uss·沃格特和杰夫·克拉克。

Russ Vogt and Jeff Clark.

知名度高多了。

Much better known.

更广为人知的人物。

Much better known figures.

我们知道，在拜登执政期间，拉塞尔·沃格特创办了自己的智库——‘美国复兴中心’，持续推动MAGA运动。

Russell Vogt, as we know, during the Biden years, starts the starts a a think tank of his own, the Center for Renewing America, where they were keeping the MAGA movement alive.

是的。

Mhmm.

杰夫·克拉克多年来一直致力于反对‘危害认定’。

Jeff Clark has been in the fight against the endangerment finding for decades.

在我看来，环保署规模太大了。

EPA, it seems to me, is too big.

它靠刺激资金膨胀，且一心只想扩张。

It's bloated on stimulus money, and it seems hell bent on expansion.

在‘危害认定’出现之前，他就已向法院提起诉讼，主张环保署没有、也不应拥有监管温室气体的法律权力。

Before there ever was an endangerment finding, he went to court to argue that the EPA doesn't have and shouldn't have the legal authority to address greenhouse gases.

对于环保署来说，即使其法规会导致荒谬的后果并对国家经济造成巨大损害，也无关紧要。

It doesn't matter to EPA if it's absurd, if its regulations are gonna lead to absurd consequences that inflict massive harm on the national economy.

输了这一点。

Loses that.

而根据我们所知，这多年来一直是杰夫·克拉克的主要动因——他认为自己在纠正一个错误。

And that, from from everything we have been told, is really a motivating factor for years with Jeff Clark, what he sees as righting a wrong.

当然，杰夫·克拉克还以另一件事闻名，我想很多听众都会记得：在特朗普第一任期结束时，他从司法部深处现身，成为特朗普总统的盟友，试图推翻2020年大选结果，以至于特朗普曾短暂考虑任命他为代理司法部长。

Of course, the other thing Jeff Clark is known for, and I think a lot of our listeners will remember this, is that at the end of the first Trump term, he emerges from deep within the justice department as an ally of president Trump and trying to overturn the twenty twenty election so much so that Trump briefly considers making him the acting attorney general.

这一举动吓坏了司法部的许多人，他们纷纷威胁要辞职。

And that so scares people at the department of justice that many of them threaten to quit.

如果真发生了，总统就退缩了。

If it happens, president backs down.

但克拉克因此被公认为主要的选举否认者。

But Clark becomes known as a major election denier.

没错。

That's right.

因此，到2022年底至2023年，杰夫·克拉克和拉塞尔·沃格特住进了国会山的一栋联排别墅，沃格特曾抱怨那栋房子鸽子成群，他们在那里起草行政命令，准备供新总统使用，以取消气候保护措施。

And so by late twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three, Jeff Clark and Russ Vogt are ensconced in a row house in Capitol Hill that Vogt had complained was infested with pigeons and drafting executive orders for a new president to use to eliminate climate protections.

与此同时，古纳塞卡拉和布赖特比尔正在收集他们称之为支持撤销危害认定的大量信息。

And then at the same time, Gunasekara and Brightbill are collecting what they have called an arsenal of information to support the repeal of the endangerment finding.

果然，特朗普赢得了总统大选。

Sure enough, president Trump wins the presidency.

我们在这里谈到的四个人中有三位——布赖特比尔、克拉克和沃格特——重返政府。

Three out of four of the people that we're talking about here, Brightbill, Clark, and Vogt, go back into the administration

是的。

Mhmm.

他们能够向总统提供一份清晰的路线图，推动美国历史上最大规模的气候放松监管，而如今正是按照这条路线在推进。

And are able to hand the president a very clear road map for the biggest climate deregulation in American history, and that's what's being followed right now.

我们马上回来。

We'll be right back.

我是贾德森·琼斯。

I'm Judson Jones.

我是《纽约时报》的记者兼气象学家。

I'm a reporter and meteorologist at The New York Times.

大约二十年来，我一直在报道极端天气，而这些天气正因气候变化而变得更加严重，因此及时、准确的天气信息变得越来越重要。

For about two decades, I've been covering extreme weather, which is getting worse because of climate change, And it's becoming more important to get timely and accurate weather information.

这就是为什么我们会发送这些定制通讯，提前最多三天告知您可能影响您或您关心的地方的极端天气。

That's why we send these customized newsletters letting you know up to three days in advance about extreme weather that could impact you or a place you care about.

在《纽约时报》，您可以确信我们发布的所有内容都基于我们所能获得的最准确、经过验证的科学信息，因为我们希望您能够实时做出关于如何安排生活的决定。

At The Times, you can be confident that everything we publish is based off the most accurate scientific and vetted information available to us because we want you to be able to make real time decisions about how to go about your life.

这种工作让订阅《纽约时报》变得如此有价值，也是您支持基于事实的独立新闻的方式。

This is the kind of work that makes subscribing to The New York Times so valuable, and it's how you can support fact based independent journalism.

如果您想订阅，请前往 nytimes.com/subscribe。

So if you'd like to subscribe, go to nytimes.com/subscribe.

所以，丽莎，一旦这些主张废除危害认定的倡导者进入白宫并拥有实际废除它的权力，他们的技术论点是什么？

So, Lisa, once a bunch of these advocates of repealing the endangerment finding end up inside the White House and in a position to actually repeal it, what's the technical case?

他们提出的法律依据是什么，试图实现这一点？

What's the legal case that they make to try to do that?

还记得我跟你说过，奥巴马政府之所以发布危害认定，是因为最高法院表示，要监管这些气体，就必须确定它们对人类健康和环境有害。

So remember I told you that the Obama administration wrote the endangerment finding because the Supreme Court said, in order to regulate these gases, you need to determine that these are harmful to human health and the environment.

是的

Mhmm.

因此，当前的特朗普政府正在审视这一发现，并表示我们不同意你们所使用的科学依据。

So now this administration, the Trump administration, is looking at that finding, and they're saying, the science that you used is something we don't agree with.

他们还声称，这一法律依据存在问题。

And they're saying, the legal rationale is problematic.

那么先从科学说起。

So start with the science.

他们为什么质疑这些科学？

Why do they dispute the science?

这种质疑有说服力吗？

And is it compelling?

他们提出，2009年对气候变化影响的预测过于悲观了。

So they have made the case that the predictions that were made about the impacts of climate change back in 2009 were too pessimistic.

他们支持这一说法的证据，是去年五名由能源部秘密挑选的气候怀疑论者撰写的报告。

Their evidence to support that claim is a report that five handpicked climate contrarians wrote in secret for the Department of Energy last year.

这份报告的设计初衷是为了支持撤销危害认定，毫不意外，其结论是气候变化的威胁被夸大了。

It was designed to support the repeal of the endangerment finding, and no surprise to anyone, the conclusion was that climate change threats have been overblown.

有意思。

Interesting.

众多科学家告诉我们两件事。

And what multitudes of scientists have told us are two things.

是的。

Yeah.

地球的状况比2009年预测的要好，因为国际社会虽然行动不够迅速，但确实在减少排放方面做了努力。

The planet is better off than what was predicted in 2009 because the international community has acted not enough, not fast enough, but has done work towards reducing emissions.

但同样真实的是，每一份进入大气的排放都会导致更多变暖，进而带来更多的健康影响，以及我们已知的持续危害人类健康和环境的种种后果。

But what's also true is that every bit of emissions that enters the atmosphere leads to more warming, which leads to more health impacts and all of the things that we know continue to endanger human health and the environment.

科学家们表示，如今这项研究的可靠性甚至比2009年更强。

Scientists say that that research is even more ironclad today than it was in 2009.

接着是特朗普政府为撤销危害认定所提出的法律论点。

Then there's the Trump administration's legal arguments for repealing the endangerment finding.

有几个。

There's a couple.

退一步说。

Take a step back.

危害认定源于一项法律，即1970年的《清洁空气法》。

The endangerment finding, that flowed from a law, the 1970 Clean Air Act.

环保署辩称，《清洁空气法》仅允许其监管所谓的局部和区域污染物，比如来自工业源、工厂、发电厂的烟尘，这些物质吸入后危害极大。

This EPA is arguing that the Clean Air Act only allows EPA to regulate what it calls local and regional pollutants, things like soot from industrial sources, factories, power plants, stuff that's really bad when you breathe it in.

嗯。

Mhmm.

温室气体排放并不是这样运作的。

Greenhouse gas emissions don't work that way.

二氧化碳、甲烷，你知道的，所有这些气体都会扩散到大气中。

Carbon dioxide, methane, you know, all these gases, they disperse into the atmosphere.

它们会捕获热量。

They trap heat.

它们在大气中持续数十年甚至数百年，改变气候。

They linger from decades to centuries and alter the climate.

因此，环保署辩称，它根本没有法律授权来处理这类——我们姑且称之为全球性污染物。

So this EPA is is making the argument that it just does not have the legal authority to deal with those kinds of, let's call them global pollutants.

有意思。

Interesting.

所以他们的论点是，危害认定误解了《清洁空气法》，认为你可以监管那些本质上并非局部的温室气体。

So their argument is that the endangerment finding misunderstands the Clean Air Act and thinks that you can regulate greenhouse gases that by definition are not local.

它们会飘到天空中。

They end up in the sky.

它们远离了原始排放源，因此，危害认定在法律上站不住脚。

They end up far from their original source, and therefore, the endangerment finding is not legally sound.

没错。

Exactly.

律师们认同这个论点吗？

Do lawyers agree with that argument?

他们意见不一。

They're mixed.

我的意思是，有一些保守派律师认为环保署的立场很有说服力。

I mean, there are some conservative lawyers who think that the EPA has a really good case to make.

我们接触过的环境律师表示，小布什政府曾为不发布危害认定而提出过类似论点，但失败了。

You know, environmental attorneys that we've we've spoken to have said that the George w Bush administration made similar arguments to defend its decision not to issue an endangerment finding and lost.

但还有一个相关的论点。

But there's another argument that's linked.

是的。

Mhmm.

自2009年以来，最高法院多次裁定反对那些要求对工业和经济进行重大变革的环境监管措施。

Since 2009, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against environmental regulations that require big transformational changes to industry and the economy.

因此，特朗普政府认为，基于这一新的法律环境，以及许多源自危害认定的监管措施在他们看来需要广泛的技术和经济变革。

And so the Trump administration is saying, based on that new legal landscape, and the fact that so many of the regulations that have stemmed from the endangerment finding require, in their view, sweeping technology, economic changes.

是的。

Mhmm.

他们认为，这个危害认定的依据应当被推翻。

They're arguing that the source, the endangerment finding, should be overturned.

这很有趣。

Fascinating.

如果从危害认定衍生出的这么多法规最终都被最高法院推翻，那么这些法规的源头——危害认定本身，也应被视为非法。

If so many regulations that flow from the endangerment finding eventually get struck down by the supreme court, then the fruit of those regulations, the finding itself, should itself be seen as illegal.

除非国会明确授予环保署监管温室气体排放的权力，但几十年来，国会从未这样做过。

Unless Congress explicitly gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which after decades, they have never done.

而本届国会几乎不可能授予它这项权力。

And this congress is very unlikely to ever give it that power.

绝对不可能。

Definitely not.

明白了。

Okay.

那么，既然我们理解了特朗普政府的这些论点，能否解释一下他们将如何把这些论点转化为废除危害认定的行动？

So now that we understand the Trump administration's arguments here, just explain how they're gonna turn those arguments into the end of the endangerment finding.

我们预计政府会采取什么措施来终止这一认定？

What do we expect the administration to do to end the finding?

我们预计周四，环保局局长李·泽尔丁将宣布终止这一危害认定，他本人曾表示要‘将一把匕首刺入气候变化宗教的心脏’。

So what we expect is on Thursday, the administrator of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, who has said that he plans to drive a dagger through the heart of the climate change religion, his words, will announce the end of the endangerment finding.

但这并不是故事的结局。

But it's not the end of the story.

什么意思？

Meaning?

环保组织和各州将立即提起诉讼。

Environmental groups, states are going to immediately sue.

接下来几年，这场争议将在法庭上持续展开。

And this will be played out in the courts over the next several years.

我们预计法庭上会发生什么？这场争议最终会升级到多高的法院？

And what do we expect will happen in the courts, and just how high up in the courts is this likely to go?

问题就在这里。

Well, that's the thing.

我们知道，我们一直讨论的那群人——也就是制定这条路线图的人——希望看到什么。

We know what the group that we've been talking about, the the folks who laid out this road map hope to see.

他们希望这个案件能提交到最高法院。

And that is that this case gets before the Supreme Court.

如果真的发生，保守派运动中许多人希望，具有里程碑意义的气候变化案件——马萨诸塞州诉环保署案——能被推翻或严重削弱。

And if that happens, there is a lot of hope in the conservative movement that the landmark climate change case, Massachusetts versus EPA, could be overturned or significantly weakened.

所以他们的希望是，危害认定最终能以某种方式呈交最高法院，让最高法院的保守派多数推翻最初允许危害认定存在的那项最高法院裁决。

So their hope is that the endangerment finding ends up before the Supreme Court in such a way that a conservative majority of the Supreme Court would overturn the original Supreme Court ruling that allows the endangerment finding to have ever come into existence.

你一语中的。

You hit the nail on the head.

如果真的发生，未来的总统将无法重新实施针对温室气体排放的法规，除非国会明确下令这么做。

And if that happens, a future president would not be able to reinstate regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and lessen until congress explicitly said, go do that.

让我们假设一会儿，丽莎，我们的法律体系确实允许危害认定被取消。

And let's presume for just a moment, Lisa, that our legal system does allow the endangerment finding to go away.

我想谈谈这对环境和产业可能产生的影响。

I wanna talk about the repercussions of that on the environment, on industry.

我们先从这些法规目前所影响的行业说起吧，我假设一旦这些法规突然消失，会对行业产生什么影响？

And let's just start with the impact on industry that now operates under these regulations that I presume suddenly would start to go away?

对行业来说，首先他们会获得一直声称想要的确定性。

Well, one thing that industry would get is the certainty that it has said it always wants.

对吧？

Right?

他们会知道，再也不用面对过去十五年来的反复波动了。

It would know that it would not face what has been a decade and a half of whiplash.

民主党上台后开始监管发电厂、汽车等，然后共和党政府上台又取消或削弱这些规定。

Democrats come in and start to regulate power plants and automobiles and the rest, and then a Republican administration comes in and removes or weakens them.

是的。

Mhmm.

将会出现一个全新的游戏规则，而且不再包含监管限制。

There would be a new playing field, and it would not include regulatory restrictions.

所以问题来了：这会导致行业排放更多污染物吗？

So the question is, will this lead to industries polluting more?

对。

Right.

是的。

And yeah.

我们不知道。

We we don't know.

我的意思是，由于公司已经在清洁技术上投入了数十亿美元，无论是电动汽车还是发电厂的污染控制，它们很可能会继续这样做。

I mean, it is certainly possible that because companies have already put billions of dollars into clean technology, whether it's for EVs or pollution controls in power plants, that they will continue to do so.

还有公众的压力，你知道，公司非常在意它们的形象以及是否在应对气候变化这样的挑战上有所作为。

There's also public pressure, and, you know, companies very much care about how they are seen and whether they are stepping up to a challenge like climate change.

但现实是，正如CPA即将做的那样，如果完全解除监管，我们真的不知道行业会如何反应。

But the reality is, left completely unshackled as the CPA is about to do, we don't really know how industry will react.

那么，考虑到这种不确定性，取消‘危害认定’对环境和气候变化整体意味着什么？

Well, given that uncertainty, what would the elimination of the endangerment finding mean for the environment and for climate change writ large?

这是否意味着现在一切都完全交由行业来决定了？

Is that suddenly now pretty much in the hands of industry?

这个问题很难回答。

It's such a hard question to answer.

我的意思是，是的。

I mean, yes.

部分原因是特朗普政府已经相当有效地限制了各州自行应对气候变化的某些措施。

And part of the reason why is that the Trump administration has already pretty effectively restricted some of the things that states can do to address climate change on their own.

比如哪些？

Like what?

加利福尼亚州是美国唯一一个可以制定比联邦政府更严格环境法规的州。

California is the only state in the country that can set more stringent environmental regulations than the federal government.

它需要获得豁免才能这样做。

It needs a waiver to do that.

加利福尼亚州曾试图制定更严格的汽车排放标准。

California tried to set even stricter automobile emissions rules.

他们计划在未来十年左右逐步淘汰燃油车的销售。

They had a plan to eliminate the sales of combustion engine vehicles, you know, in the next decade or so.

但特朗普政府和国会撤销了这一豁免权。

But the Trump administration and congress rescinded that waiver.

我看加州在未来至少三年内不太可能再获得这样的豁免权。

I can't see California getting another waiver at least during the next three years.

是的。

Mhmm.

这不仅限制了加州，也束缚了其他有志于在汽车领域采取雄心勃勃措施的州的手脚。

So that really ties the hands of not just California, but other like minded states that might want to do something very ambitious on automobiles.

那么，在缺乏重大新州级法规、联邦政府又根本不愿监管大部分温室气体排放的情况下，科学家们认为世界会变成什么样？

So in the absence of major new state regulation and a federal government that doesn't wanna regulate most of these greenhouse emissions at all, what do scientists say that the world starts to look like?

科学家们很担忧。

Scientists are worried.

我的意思是，美国是历史上最大的温室气体排放国。

I mean, The United States is the largest historic emitter of climate change.

它也是全球第二大年度碳污染和温室气体排放国。

It's the second largest annual emitter of carbon pollution and greenhouse gases.

如果美国不履行其责任，许多国家可能会开始质疑自己为何还要努力。

If The US is not doing its part, a lot of countries could start to wonder why should they.

最重要的是中国，这也是很多人向我表达的担忧。

And the most important is China, and that's the big fear that a lot have have relayed to me.

如果美国不仅未能减少自身的排放，还说服其他国家也不必减排，科学家们认为这可能会对地球产生极其危险的多米诺效应。

If The United States is is successful in not just failing to reduce its own emissions, but convincing other countries that they don't need to either, scientists feel that could have a really dangerous domino effect for the planet.

那么这些多米诺骨牌最终会倒在哪些地方？

And where do those dominoes eventually fall?

我的意思是，它们会导致气温更高、干旱更严重、热浪干旱更频繁，野火更加频发和剧烈，冰川融化导致海平面上升，威胁沿海社区。

I mean, they they fall in more severe rising temperatures and more droughts and hotter droughts, more frequent and severe wildfires, rising sea levels from melting glaciers that are threatening coastal communities.

科学家告诉我们，这些变化也会直接损害人类健康。

These kinds of changes also directly damage human health, scientists tell us.

它们破坏粮食安全和水资源供应。

They damage food security, water supplies.

它们导致媒介传播疾病增加，比如莱姆病和登革热。

They lead to an increase in vector borne diseases, Lyme disease, dengue.

科学家警告，如果排放量持续上升，将会带来一系列广泛的影响，而且这些影响会越来越严重。

There's a whole sweeping landscape of impacts that scientists are warning will get worse if emissions continue to go up.

我觉得你所讲述的这个故事中非常引人注目的是，这个国家对温室气体的认知——即它们导致气候变化，且政府应当对此采取行动——在短短十五年内发生了如此迅速的转变。

I feel like what's quite remarkable about the story that you've told here is how quickly this country's relationship to greenhouse gases, the idea that they create climate change and that this is something to be addressed by the government, how quickly, really just in a decade and a half, that's changed.

如果你回到21世纪初，当‘危害认定’文件出台时，当时商界乃至政界许多人都开始认同：这是一个问题，并且是可以解决的。

If you go back to the mid early two thousands when the endangerment finding was written, it seemed like much of the business and even political world was starting to become aligned in this sense that there was a problem and that something could be done about it.

你好。

Hi.

我是南希·佩洛西，终身民主党人，众议院议长。

I'm Nancy Pelosi, lifelong Democrat and speaker of the house.

我是纽特·金里奇，终身共和党人，我曾经担任过议长。

And I'm Newt Gingrich, lifelong republican, and I used to be speaker.

我相信你还记得那个著名的画面。

I'm sure you remember the famous eye.

当时南希·佩洛西和纽特·金里奇并肩坐在国会大厦前的沙发上。

Ad where Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich are sitting on a couch together in front of the capital.

我们并不总是看法一致，对吧，纽特？

We don't always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?

不对。

No.

但我们确实有共识。

But we do agree.

我们的国家必须采取行动应对气候变化。

Our country must take action to address climate change.

我们需要领导人，当然，关于该怎么做从来都不会有完全一致的意见。

We need leader for There wasn't always going to be ever, of course, agreement about what to do about it.

企业并不热衷于改变行为所带来的某些成本。

Businesses weren't thrilled about some of the costs entailed in changing their conduct.

但很多人接受了必须采取行动这一观点。

But a lot of people got on board with the idea that something needed to be done.

然而，正如你在这里所解释的，一群意识形态上一致的气候变化怀疑论者，在共和党和民主党总统任内持续施压，成功地将他们的观点——未必是国家的主流观点——变成了政府的官方政策。

And yet, as you've explained here, a very persistent group of ideologically aligned climate change skeptics kept at it through Republican and Democratic presidencies and have succeeded in making their view, which isn't necessarily the nation's view, become the government's official policy.

这确实值得一看。

And that's something to behold.

确实如此。

It really is.

我们在报道这个故事的过程中逐渐清楚，这群保守派律师对气候变化的看法甚至不属于他们自己政党的主流观点。

And one of the things that became clear as we were reporting this story out is that this group of conservative lawyers, their views on climate change were not in the mainstream, even of their own party.

但他们非常执着，并进行了大量的规划。

But they were persistent, and they did an enormous amount of planning.

这种坚持最终带来了特朗普总统的上台，众所周知，他对气候变化的看法是将其称为骗局、骗局。

And that persistence paid off in the form of president Trump, who you know, we all know his views on climate change, calls it a hoax, calls it a scam.

当特朗普当选时，这两种力量结合在一起，准备推进这一反气候议程。

And when president Trump was elected, these two forces joined, and they were ready to get this anti climate agenda done.

今天晚些时候，当‘危害认定’被撤销时，正如一位气候怀疑论者所说，这将是他们事业的全面胜利。

And later today, when the endangerment finding is repealed, it will be, in the words of one climate contrarian, total victory for their cause.

好了，丽莎，非常感谢你。

Well, Lisa, thank you very much.

非常感谢。

Thanks so much.

我们马上回来。

We'll be right back.

以下是今天您需要了解的其他内容。

Here's what else you need to know today.

周三，关于联邦政府突然关闭德克萨斯州埃尔帕索周边空域（原定十天）的谜团似乎得到了解答。

On Wednesday, the mystery surrounding the federal government's decision to abruptly shut down the airspace around El Paso, Texas, originally for ten days, appeared to be solved.

《纽约时报》报道称，这一关闭决定是在美国海关和边境保护局决定试用一种新型反无人机激光技术，以打击他们认为来自墨西哥贩毒集团的无人机后作出的。

The Times reports that the closure was announced after officials from US Customs and Border Protection decided to try out a new anti drone laser technology in order to shoot at what they believed was a drone from Mexican drug cartels.

但边境保护局官员未能给联邦航空管理局足够时间评估这项新技术对民航飞机的风险。

But the Border Protection officials failed to give officials from the Federal Aviation Administration enough time to assess the risks of the new technology on commercial planes.

这促使联邦航空管理局关闭了空域，但很快又撤销了这一决定。

That prompted the FAA to shut down the airspace before quickly reversing their own decision.

而且

And

你起诉了多少名爱泼斯坦的共犯？

How many of Epstein's co conspirators have you indicted?

你们正在调查多少名施害者？

How many perpetrators are you even investigating?

首先，是你自己展示出来的。

First, you showed it.

你，我，我找到了。

You I I find it.

你们点燃了多少人？

How many have you ignited?

不好意思。

Excuse me.

我会回答这个问题。

I'm gonna answer the question.

我来回答我的问题。

I answer my question.

不。

No.

我会按照我想的方式回答这个问题。

I'm gonna answer the question the way I wanna answer the question.

不。

No.

你是

You're

在周三的一场激烈听证会上，民主党国会议员严厉批评了司法部长帕姆·邦迪，指责其部门对与杰弗里·爱泼斯坦相关的文件处理不当，并多次试图起诉总统的敌人。

During a combative hearing on Wednesday, Democratic members of Congress sharply criticized attorney general Pam Bondi for her department's handling of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and her repeated efforts to prosecute enemies of the president.

你把人民的司法部变成了特朗普的复仇工具。

You've turned the People's Department of Justice into Trump's instrument of revenge.

特朗普点Prosecutions就像点披萨，而你每次都准时送达。

Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza, and you deliver every time.

他让你去追查詹姆斯·科米、莱蒂西亚·詹姆斯、丽莎·普普。

He tells you to go after James Comey, Leticia James, Lisa Pup.

邦迪有力地为自己的行为辩护，频繁打断议员发言，有时甚至侮辱他们，比如当马里兰州议员杰米·拉斯金要求她停止以拖延战术回应民主党人的提问时，她也对他出言不逊。

Bondi forcefully defended her actions, frequently interrupted lawmakers, and at times insulted them as she did to representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland when he instructed Bondy to stop filibustering in response to questions from Democrats.

在你开始之前，我就已经告诉过你了，司法部长。

And I told you about that, attorney general, before you started.

你没资格教训我。

You don't tell me.

不。

No.

哦，我

Oh, I

我确实告诉过你，因为我们亲眼目睹了你在参议院的所作所为。

did tell you because we saw what you did in the senate.

一个律师。

A lawyer.

连律师都不是。

Not even a lawyer.

接下来按顺序进行。

It will be in order.

今天的节目由埃里克·克鲁普克、迈克尔·西蒙·约翰逊和安娜·福利制作。

Today's episode was produced by Eric Krupke, Michael Simon Johnson, and Anna Foley.

节目由玛丽亚·伯恩和德文·泰勒剪辑，音乐由阿丽西亚巴·伊图布、马里昂·洛扎诺和丹·鲍威尔创作，音频工程由克里斯·伍德负责。

It was edited by Maria Byrne and Devin Taylor, contains music by Aliciaba Itub, Marion Lozano, and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Chris Wood.

以上就是《每日新闻》的全部内容。

That's it for The Daily.

我是迈克尔·奥劳罗。

I'm Michael O'Lauro.

明天见。

See you tomorrow.