[MtnClimber]

I am not optimistic that the green cult can be easily disbanded.

[JJBookman]

Just rescind the EPA

[Celtic Conservative]

CO2 is not a pollutant: it’s plant food. And it plays a vital role in the sequestration of carbon in plant matter. The same plant matter that we eat. So we NEED CO2.

CC

[Carry_Okie]

Three main points need to be made in an EPA regulatory action rescinding the EF: (1) Empirical evidence accumulated since the original EF invalidates the finding and makes it impossible to conclude that CO2 and other GHGs constitute a “danger” as required by the statute; (2) due to huge increases since 2009 in CO2 and other GHG emissions outside the U.S. and thus outside the ability of EPA to regulate, no regulations promulgated by EPA could have any meaningful impact on the overall atmospheric concentrations of the gases, and (3) efforts by EPA to control the climate by restricting CO2 and other GHGs, by contrast, would almost certainly have drastic adverse effects on public health and welfare by, for example, destabilizing the electrical grid and causing blackouts, driving up the cost of electricity or mobility, bringing about massive battery fires and explosions, and lots of other such things.

He's missing one: The damage to the economy by these regulations will diminish the capital stock such that we cannot afford to develop and install alternative baseload sources of electrical energy (such as nuclear reactors). Thus, the EF finding is destructive to its own ends of reducing carbon emissions.

[bobbo666]

CO2 is essential to all life since no plants can exist without it. Just like non-plants quickly die if O2 is cut off.

Can excesses cause problems? Of course, only an idiot would think otherwise. Name one item that has no upper limit.

[hinckley buzzard]

The 2009 “endangerment finding” is a keystone of the climate nazis’ whole strategy of making CO2 the “control knob” of the climate. It is a sham finding based on misrepresentation of the science by activist shysters and the obtuseness of some Supreme Court justices. The case against it is very understandable and based on actual scientific data rather than models and handwaving. As with the reversal of the Chevron doctrine, the current court has shown itself to be at least amenable to reason and able to reverse when it is good law to do so.