WASHINGTON (AP) — Near the end of his first term, President Donald Trump signed into law a bill that aimed to reduce harmful, planet-warming pollutants emitted by refrigerators and air conditioners. The bipartisan measure brought environmentalists and major business groups into rare alignment on the contentious issue of climate change and won praise across the political spectrum.
Five years later, the second Trump administration is reversing course, as it moves to loosen a federal rule that requires grocery stores, air-conditioning companies, and others to reduce powerful greenhouse gases used in cooling equipment.
The shift in approach has upended a broad bipartisan consensus on the need to quickly phase out domestic use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, that are thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide and are considered a major driver of global warming.
The proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) highlights the administration's drive to roll back regulations perceived as climate-friendly, even at the cost of causing disarray for the very business interests it claims to protect. The plan is among a series of sweeping environmental rollbacks that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has said will put a 'dagger through the heart of climate change religion.'
Environmentalists argue the rollback will exacerbate climate pollution while disrupting a years-long industry transition to new coolants as alternatives to HFCs. With HFCs driving extreme heat and pollution, any delay in their phaseout could have significant negative outcomes.
Industry Support for HFC Phaseout
The 2020 law known as the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act phased out HFCs as part of an international agreement on ozone pollution. It accelerated an industry shift to alternative refrigerants that use less harmful chemicals and are widely available. Business groups had previously welcomed the law and the Kigali Amendment aimed at reducing HFC use as beneficial for jobs and the environment.
However, Zeldin claims the Biden-era rules imposed overly stringent timelines that did not allow companies enough time to adapt, causing shortages and price hikes. Critics maintain that substantial steps have already been taken to comply with previous regulations, and altering the rules now may cause confusion and market disruptions.
Conclusion
As the Trump administration continues to modify environmental policies, the future of HFC regulations remains in flux, leaving both supporters and opponents watching closely to see how these changes could impact climate efforts, consumer costs, and domestic manufacturing.
