Better question: should we revisit the pilot requirement itself? Pilot's today are glorified autopilot observers. This is a way easier task than self-driving cars. Compared to a street, there's nothing to collide with (other than the ground) and the high capital cost of an aircraft means they can be heavily outfitted with sensors, connectivity hardware and safety grade control systems. Centralized operations where one pilot controls dozens of aircraft that largely fly themselves with multiple redundancies and fail safe systems. This could be safer than the current 2 pilot in aircraft system. Terrorist attacks would have to be hacking exercises, pilots would be well rested and unaffected by aircraft conditions. Start with cargo.
Perhaps this is good to change things up and see what other solutions are possible to address climate change. EPA does not have the will of the people or Congress, which detracts from its powers and potential impact. EPA may not be geared to address climate change or large energy-economy problems - just look at the current situation - whatever they are doing is not working. They are good at pollution mitigation and rule making. Climate change solutions may not be helped by rules or EPA type measures. Instead they require environments amenable to systematic energy transition: low on regulation, low on entry barriers to innovation, low on rules and policies, financially punishing to old solutions. Climate action is techno-economic challenge the EPA might not be suited for.