Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change | U.S. EPA According to Lisa Jackson this finding was the result of a a case from the Supreme Court.... Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants. The petitioners were found to have standing, the Clean Air Act does give the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, and the EPA is required to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissionsspecifically, its current rationale for not regulating was found to be inadequate, and the agency must articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Specifically, petitioners asked us to answer two questions concerning the meaning of §202(a)(1) of the Act: whether EPA has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if so, whether its stated reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statute. “The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. VIII The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. It's a leap of faith and a BIG LEAP of faith on the part of the EPA to assume because of the above mentioned case that they can now usurp congressional authority in regulating ALL manner of emissions within this nation. The above mentioned case focused on the statue and as such because of the endangerment findings the EPA can regulate CO2 emissions from the tailpipes of automobiles , however, as this case has been remanded for further proceedings consistant with the opinion it is far from set in stone. The move on the part of the EPA to announce this finding one day prior the to Presidents departure to the so called climate summit was a pure political move on the part of the EPA and has little or anything to do with this massive marketing scheme known as MMGW.