The EPA has fundamentally restructured its public climate change content. Several climate documents now omit references to human influence, even though previous versions clearly addressed this aspect. The U.S. environmental agency is thus not only changing the text but also the emphasis placed on scientific positions. At the same time, government climate policy is taking on a different communicative focus. This development affects key information pages and will have a lasting impact on the public image of the federal agency. (eenews: 12.12.25)
EPA Reorients Causes of Climate Change
Previous versions of the EPA website contained explicit passages on the human contribution to global warming. These statements were based on studies considered reliable within many scientific circles. One of the agency’s main pages featured the translated sentence: “It is clear that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, oceans, and land.” This wording has now been completely removed, even though it previously served as a guiding principle.
Furthermore, the climate documents of that era included a probability of over 95 percent that human activities since the 1950s were the dominant factor. This classification has also disappeared. Graphs on emissions from industry, energy production, and agriculture are now also missing, even though they clearly explained climate change and provided expert guidance.
Climate documents now emphasize natural factors.
The current presentation focuses on natural processes. Changes in Earth’s orbit, fluctuations in solar activity, volcanic effects, and naturally occurring greenhouse gases are still mentioned. Humans no longer appear as an explanatory factor in this presentation, even though earlier climate documents treated natural and anthropogenic causes together and clearly distinguished between them.
While the statement that recent developments cannot be explained solely by natural factors is still included, it lacks further explanation. A direct link to global warming caused by human emissions is missing, leaving the statement open to interpretation.
Removed Content Changes the Role of the Environmental Protection Agency
In parallel with the content shift, the EPA removed entire sections of its website. Pages on indicators and impacts are particularly affected. This content previously described measurable changes related to human activities. For many users, this technical information was considered a reliable resource.
An archived version stated, in translation, that the indicators characterize emissions from human activities. This passage is no longer present. As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency loses a crucial reference point that made the link between emissions and climate change tangible.
Scientific and Political Context
Climate researcher Daniel Swain of the University of California assessed the changes as substantial. The removed content was considered a well-prepared source of information, as it presented complex data in an understandable way. Researchers regularly used this resource to contextualize regional effects of global warming.
An EPA spokesperson categorized the adjustments as routine editing and referred to government policy priorities. In a statement, the federal agency emphasized its focus on economic recovery. This approach aligns with current climate policy, which critically evaluates regulatory interventions.
Climate Policy and Legal Disputes
At the same time, the planned revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Status is under discussion. This status currently allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Observers see a connection between the altered presentation and this climate policy stance, as conflicting content appears less prominent.
Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists strongly criticized the approach. Her organization, along with the Environmental Defense Fund, is suing the Department of Energy. A court has already ordered the release of internal documents. Whether this transparency also extends to the role of the Environmental Protection Agency remains to be seen. However, one thing is certain: the re-evaluation of scientific content is fundamentally changing the public perception of American climate policy.