leading through climate governance instability + what companies do next

Feb 23

Federal climate guardrails are weakening. But that doesn’t change risk exposure.

published 2.23.26

In July 2025, the EPA proposed rescinding the 17-year-old Endangerment Finding, the legal determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and therefore can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This month, that repeal was finalized.

The Endangerment Finding has functioned as foundational public health infrastructure. Its repeal is more than deregulation. It’s a deliberate diminishing of long-standing scientific and regulatory protections.

And for the people living near highways, ports, refineries and power plants? This is about: Air quality. Asthma rates. Water safety. Heat exposure.

For companies, it marks a period of institutional destabilization that will reshape compliance planning, litigation exposure and long-term strategy.

At qb., we approach moments like this as systems design challenges rooted in human impact. Because when policy falls short, responsibility is picked up by the institutions, companies and communities willing to build what should have been protected in the first place.

What This Moment Signals

Headlines will focus on whether the Supreme Court will uphold or overturn the repeal. But the deeper story is governance fragmentation.

Even if federal authority contracts:

👉California and New York are advancing climate disclosure rules

👉International regulations like the EU’s CSRD remain in effect

👉Investors continue to assess climate risk (because markets don’t wait for politics)

👉Courts become the primary arena for accountability

👉Public nuisance and climate-linked liability claims increase

As practitioners, we know all too well that fragmentation increases operational complexity. This moment marks a heightened phase in an already unstable compliance landscape with accelerating divergence across jurisdictions, increasingly uneven enforcement and materially higher stakes for long-term planning.

Businesses operate best in stable institutional environments. When scientific standards and regulatory precedents are contested, long-term investment planning becomes more difficult.

The cost of dismantling infrastructure…only to rebuild it later? Very real.

A People-First Lens on Regulatory Erosion

At qb., we always ask a simple question: Who absorbs the instability?

Because when climate governance becomes politicized:

Sustainability teams are left navigating ambiguity
Legal teams prepare for shifting exposure
Operations leaders manage energy volatility and infrastructure risk
Employees are asked to explain company positions in polarized environments
People closest to pollution face the most immediate consequences

Environmental protections are public health infrastructure. And when the guardrails we relied on for clear air and clean water weaken, impacts are not distributed evenly.

This is where our people-first lens matters. We look at how power, risk and responsibility are allocated inside systems—and who is carrying what weight. Because resilience isn’t just about whether your company can comply, it’s about whether the systems you design distribute risk ethically and sustainably.

What ‘Good’ Strategy Looks Like Now

In volatile governance environments, some organizations instinctively pause, waiting to act with the group. Waiting is a strategy, too. And often, it is fragile.

A ‘good’ strategy is about designing for long-term stability regardless of who holds power.

That looks like:

✅ Continuing emissions measurement even if federal mandates weaken

✅ Aligning with state and international disclosure standards where applicable

✅ Embedding climate risk into enterprise risk management

✅ Scenario planning across multiple regulatory futures

✅ Maintaining transparency with investors and stakeholders about long-term exposure

✅ Grounding decisions in science and public health impact—not political minimums (or pendulum swings)

The companies most likely to thrive over the next decade are building resilience into their strategy by designing for long-term risk, stakeholder trust and sustainability.

Action You Can Take This Quarter

If you do nothing else, we recommend one step:

Run a governance scenario session with your leadership team. Specifically, explore three plausible futures:

Federal rollback + aggressive state action
Federal rollback + increased litigation
Reinstated or expanded federal authority post-election

For each scenario, ask:

Where are we exposed and who owns that risk?
Where are we over-reliant on federal uniformity?
What would create operational whiplash (policy reversals, reporting changes, stakeholder pressure, etc.)?
What decision rights need to be clarified now to move quickly under volatility?
What regulatory intelligence capability do we need (monitoring, interpretation, rapid response)?
What trigger points would prompt a strategic pivot?
What investments make sense across all three futures?
Who inside the organization absorbs the most volatility and how are we supporting them?

Focus on identifying the capabilities, governance structures and investments (i.e., your business architecture) that will hold up across administrations.
If you build a strategy that only works in one political environment, you are designing for instability.
If you build a strategy that holds across multiple futures, you are designing for resilience.

Where qb. Stands

Environmental protections exist because communities fought for them. Scientific standards exist because evidence demanded them. When those safeguards are challenged, organizations face a choice:

You can treat climate strategy as a compliance exercise.

Or you can treat it as long-term infrastructure for trust, health and resilience.

At qb., we work with leaders choosing the second path.

If this moment is prompting deeper questions about your responsibility, exposure or your opportunity to lead, we are here to think and build alongside you.

👋 sam@consultqb.com + camille@consultqb.com

Because governance may be volatile.

But your values AND your choices do not have to be.