by Rich Marcello ·
Friday, March 6, 2026
Rescinding the endangerment finding isn’t a way to eliminate bureaucracy, as our government has claimed. It’s a moral and scientific failure.
In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare.” That endangerment finding accepted that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA has the authority to regulate them. Though it’s been obscured these days, the science behind the finding wasn’t political. It was based on decades of atmospheric research and math, an abundance of peer-reviewed data, and the clear warming of our planet. We’ve seen evidence of the warming here in Harvard, especially in this decade. According to NASA, 10 of the warmest summers in history have occurred since 2014, resulting in local droughts, heat waves, and even a Route 2 wildfire.
To rescind that finding now is to assert, without evidence, that the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong. Or irrelevant. It’s to ignore that, according to Columbia University, over 99% of climate scientists believe human carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming and endangering human life. It’s to turn away from the fires in the West, the floods in Vermont, the warming oceans, and the rising insurance rates that destroy or hurt too many families with each new event. The administration seems to be arguing that short-term economic gains and convenience outweigh long-term planetary stability and the viability of our species. But as a society, do we really want to trade off our future for cheap gas prices?
Without the endangerment finding, the legal foundation for regulating carbon emissions disappears. Power plants, vehicles, and industrial facilities face fewer constraints. Investment retreats to coal and oil. Clean energy innovation slows. And the costs—health costs from particulate pollution, damage to our homes and infrastructure from extreme weather, lower or nonexistent agricultural yields, biodiversity loss—will increase much faster. Our children and their children will inherit a bill they can’t pay.
So, what can we do about it? How can we respond?
Washington is hundreds of miles away and can, sometimes, feel even more distant than it is. But, fortunately, our response to the climate crisis and the broader destructive pattern doesn’t have to begin there. It begins in our Town Hall, our schools, the General Store, and on the sidelines of our many soccer games. It begins with conversations. And it begins with this fact––peaceful and productive resistance works best when it is patient, local, and durable.
So, here’s what you can do. First, participate. Attend Town Meetings. Support local candidates who take climate science seriously. We’ve had too many in the last years who know nothing about the topic or, worse, think it’s a hoax. Support the Harvard Climate Initiative Committee in any way you can, small or large. The committee has already developed a solid climate action plan. Read it. Tell your friends and neighbors about it. Talk with your children. The plan details electrification standards and renewable procurement policies. It talks about the importance of electrifying everything and doing it now. Most important, it will convince you that you’re not in this fight alone.
Second, invest with intention. Divest personal and community funds from fossil fuel holdings where possible. Support local banks and credit unions that finance sustainable development. Shift household energy consumption by using efficient heat pumps, rooftop solar, and weatherization. Buy an electric vehicle. Or two. When enough households act here and across the country, the market will respond.
Third, come together and educate. Attend public forums at the library on climate science and civic engagement. The Harvard Climate Initiative runs many of them each year. Attend at least a few. Make it a family event. Or a neighborhood one. Organize reading groups around books on climate change. There are many good ones out there. Invite a member of the Climate Initiative Committee to attend to answer any questions you might have as you discuss the book. These are just a few ideas. Come up with your own. There are so many places where you can contribute. Harvard is filled with intelligence and goodwill, but it needs repeated catalysts. I hope this column is one of them. None of us can do this alone.
Fourth, to steal a famous idea, model the future you want to see. Participate in community garden and native planting initiatives. Support local farms. Join a CSA. Encourage the schools to integrate climate literacy into curricula, even more so than they already have. Children who understand the science are less likely to be misled by propaganda.
Fifth, write letters to state and federal representatives. Support investigative journalism on climate change and the other areas I mentioned above. Support the Harvard Press. Volunteer as a poll worker. Peaceful resistance depends on functioning democratic processes, and those processes require citizens who show up.
None of this is easy. None of this will lead to an immediate viral moment on your favorite social media platform. But it is how lasting change happens. Democracies rarely collapse overnight. They erode gradually when citizens disengage. They strengthen when citizens recommit to shared responsibility.
There’s a tendency, in times like this, to become depressed or angry. But we can’t afford to be depressed for long. And anger, well, it often becomes corrosive when it’s not connected to constructive action. The more difficult path is steadier and about the long game. On this path, we must acknowledge the gravity of national decisions while refusing to surrender our agency in Harvard.
Rescinding the endangerment finding sends a terrible message about what we value as a country and further isolates us from the rest of the world. Our response can send a different one. We can say that science matters. That children not yet born have standing in our moral calculations. That economic vitality and environmental stewardship are not enemies but partners. That we, as citizens, aren’t exhausted by voting every four years, even though there are days when each of us feels like this is all too much.
In Harvard, I believe we must become stewards of the environment rather than spectators. Many of us already are. If you agree, we can together start with the knowledge that history isn’t only written in capitals. It’s written in our community and others like ours. It’s written by how we respond.
Keep the faith. And do what you can, where you are.
Rich Marcello is a member of the Climate Initiative Committee. In writing his latest novel, “The Means of Keeping,” he spent several years researching the climate crisis.