Policy Updates

By Marcia Sowles

For more than three decades, the Church of the Brethren has recognized the relationship between human suffering, fossil fuel consumption, and climate change.  See

• 1991 Annual Statement – Creation: Called to Care;
• 1991 Resolution on Global Warming and Atmospheric Degradation;
• 2000 Resolution on Clean Air Principles;
• 2001 Resolution on Global Warming/Climate Change; 2018 Annual Conference Statement – Creation Care.

Our vastly increased use of fossil fuels is substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, thereby enhancing the strong possibility of catastrophic warming of the earth’s surface.  See 1991 Resolution.  Global warming adversely impacts the world in many ways.

1. First, both climate change and the burning of fossil fuels have direct health impacts, especially for the very young, very old, and people living in poverty. Tens of thousands of Americans die prematurely each year from respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease due to air pollution. Globally, premature deaths number in the millions. Poor air quality also leads to infant mortality, low birth weights, asthma, and cancer.  
2.  Second, the heat waves, floods, droughts, and other events attributed to climate change result in an annual global economic loss of $5 billion from the production of major commodity grains.  See 2018 AC Statement.  
3.  Third, the floods, droughts, and wildfires have forcibly displaced people, contributing to political instability and violent conflicts around the world. Id.

Despite the well-documented link between the use of fossil fuels, climate change, and human and environmental harm, there are multiple concerning policies from the current administration that ignore this link:

1. revoking the 2009 endangerment finding and
2. withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 

In addition, the Administration approved an exemption of regulations protecting endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico.

Recent Actions by the Presidential Administration

Withdrawal from UNFCCC:  On January 7, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order directing the United States to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and 64 other organizations. The UNFCCC is the world’s primary international treaty to combat climate change and is signed by 197 countries. The United States was an early ratifier of the UNFCCC, with the Senate approving it in 1992 by voice vote with no opposition. In signing the instrument of ratification, President George H.W. Bush called the agreement the “first step in crucial long-term international efforts to address climate change.”

UNFCCC provides the foundation for multilateral action to combat climate change and its impacts on humanity and ecosystems. As its name implies, it provides a framework for countries to

• consider latest scientific information and agree on actions to be taken – collectively and/or individually for reducing greenhouse gases and adapting to the expected adverse impacts of climate change,
• gather and share information on greenhouse gases emissions, national policies and best practices, and develop international guidance, and
• cooperate, including by mobilizing and providing finance, technology and capacity-building to developing countries, in support of the planning and implementing of mitigation measures (actions to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere) as well as adaptation measures (actions needed to respond, increase resilience and reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change). 

See https://unfccc.int/resource/bigpicture/  To meet these objectives, the signatories to the treaty have met annually to discuss their progress and explore ways to control climate change and mitigate its damage

The framework created by UNFCCC has led to further agreements on climate change such as the Paris Agreement in 2015, which seeks to limit global temperature rise and includes various mechanisms to promote the achievement of such goal.

UNFCCC chief Simon Stiell stated that “while all other nations are stepping forward together, this latest step back from global leadership, climate cooperation and science can only harm the US economy, jobs and living standards, as wildfires, floods, mega-storms and droughts get rapidly worse.”  The Office of Peacebuilding and Policy signed a letter to the US Senate alongside more than 50 other national and local faith-based organizations expressing concern about the withdrawal from the UNFCCC.

The decision to withdraw from the UNFCCC raises not only environmental concerns but also an important unresolved constitutional question: whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from an Article II treaty which was formally ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate.  Scholars are divided on the issue. Some have concluded that a president has such authority.  See Louis Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution 169 (1980).  Others, including Harold Koh, a professor at Yale Law School and former Legal Advisor at the State Department have concluded that the president cannot unilaterally withdraw from treaties.  See Harold Koh, The National Security Constitution in the 21^st Century 311-17 (2024).  Professor Koh argues that a “mirror principle” should be applied “whereby the degree of congressional approval required to exit from an international agreement mirrors the degree of congressional approval needed to enter the agreement in the first place.”  Id. at 311.  

Revocation of Endangerment Finding: On February 12, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations rescinding its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare.  The rulemaking also simultaneously repealed the emissions standards for vehicles. Although this rulemaking only directly addressed emissions from vehicles, the EPA endangerment finding also provided the legal basis for regulating fossil-fired power plants and oil and gas facilities.  The revocation is thus expected to be cited by EPA as a basis to dismantle other regulations.

The decision to revoke the endangerment finding defies logic and science. The scientific support linking greenhouse gases with climate change is even stronger today than when it was adopted in 2009.   Moreover, the harm caused by climate change is increasing. Last year, 23 extreme weather and climate disasters inflicted an estimated $115 billion in damage and took 276 lives across the U.S. See Statement by Phyllis Cuttino, Climate Reality Project President and CEO.  This does not include the overall impact on farmers’ productions due to climate change or the loss of life due to unusually hot summers.

Environmental groups and a coalition of 24 states and 10 cities have filed suits challenging the rescission of the finding and repeal of the emission regulations.  See American Public Health Association v. EPA, No. 26-1037 (D.C. Cir.) and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v EPA, No. 26-1061 (D.C. Cir.).    

Approval of an Exemption from the Endangered Species Act:On April 1, a federal government panel voted to exempt oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico from regulations issued under the Endangered Species Act.  The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 to protect plants and animals at risk of extinction and the ecosystems they depend on.  The Administration relied upon a provision allowing a president to convene a committee of agency heads empowered to effectively veto protections for species on the brink of extinction. The panel, which is known as the “God squad” for its ability to make life or death decisions about endangered species, was convened at the request of Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth.  He alleged that the exemption was required for “national security” due to the disruption of the supply chain for oil by the war in Iran.

This was only the third time the exemption has been invoked and the first time in more than 30 years.  It was also the first time that it had ever been invoked on grounds of national security.  Moreover, unlike the prior instances, there was no public hearing or opportunity to submit comments. The decision is being challenged by several environmental groups, including the National Wildlife Foundation, the National Resources Defense Fund and the Center for Biodiversity.

The Gulf of Mexico is home to at least 19 other threatened and endangered species, including the critically endangered Rice’s whale, of which there are only about 51 in the wild, as well as the sperm whale, two species of endangered sea turtles and the manatee.

Congress: Pending Legislative Actions

In December, the U.S House passed two bills that would roll back environmental laws:  

1. Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act and
2. the PERMIT Act.

The Speed Act (H.R. 4776) would weaken the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  Signed into law on January 1, 1970, the NEPA is a foundational U.S. environmental law requiring federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of proposed major actions. It mandates an interdisciplinary approach, evaluating impacts and alternatives through Environmental Assessments (EAs) or Environmental Impact Statements  (EIS). The SPEED Act would shorten timelines and limit the scope of environmental reviews. It reduces legal challenges, caps lawsuits at 150 days, and prevents permit revocations.  It also restricts the use or consideration of new or updated scientific information in permitting decisions.

The Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act (H.R. 3898) passed by the House in December 2025, is a threat to the Clean Water Act, aiming to curtail regulatory oversight to speed up infrastructure projects.

• The Act could remove federal protections for streams that do not flow year-round, seasonal wetlands, and ground water, creating vast loopholes in the CWA.
•  It restricts the ability of states and Tribes to review and place conditions on federal projects (e.g., pipelines) under Section 401 of the CWA.
• The legislation makes it easier to discharge pollutants, including PFAS (“forever chemicals”), pesticides, and agricultural waste into waterways.
• It empowers federal agencies (EPA/Army Corps) to exempt entire categories of waterways from protection without public input or scientific review.

While these bills have passed the House, it is not too late to contact your Senators! Find a sample email below and use our legislator lookup tool to find your senators.

Sample Email

Dear [Senator],

As a Christian, my faith strongly motivates me to care for others and for God’s creation. For this reason, I strongly urge you to oppose the SPEED Act (H.R. 4776) and the PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898). Each of these bills weakens bedrock environmental legislation and takes away accountability for pollution.

The SPEED Act would dangerously limit the environmental review process created by NEPA and make it harder for local communities to challenge projects like gas pipelines. The PERMIT Act would allow more pollution to be added directly to waterways by limiting the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Both of these bills would harm the environment and local communities around the US. It is essential for Congress to remain committed to longstanding environmental protections for all of God’s creation.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]