Posted on 07/29/2025 12:29:31 PM PDT by BenLurkin
The Trump administration has announced a plan to scrap a landmark finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment, severely curbing the federal government's ability to combat climate change.
Known as the "Endangerment Finding", the 2009 order from then-President Barack Obama allowed the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create rules to limit pollution by setting emissions standards.
...
The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" - meaning that the EPA has the authority and responsibility to regulate them under the US Clean Air Act.
In 2009, the EPA made an official decision, the Endangerment Finding, which found that greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as cars, power plants and factories cause climate change and could pose a public health risk.
The decision forms the core of the federal government's authority to impose limits on carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases.
In a statement, the EPA said that, if finalised, the move will save Americans $54bn (£40bn) in costs annually through the repeal of greenhouse gas standards, including an electric vehicle mandate passed by the Biden administration.
... EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the move was "basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion".
Zeldin said that emissions standards were a "distraction" and that the policy change was "an economic issue". "Repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America," he said.
In a previous statement on reconsidering the findings in March, Zeldin said that "the Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas."
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Bump
Excellent.
We will win this one only if it survives the courts. It will be a fight considering the rats have an SC ruling to help them.
WRT :[2007 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants”]
The USSC has/had no authority, nor sufficient expertise to make such a scientifically bogus ruling!
For instance, the most abundant “greenhouse gas” (94%) is WATER VAPOR!!!
3, 2, 1, Which judgie poo is going to step in and block it ?
Any statement even remotely related to science which was done by Dorkbama, the ignorant Muslin eumuch quota pretend intellect, is on the opposite side of the universe from true science. Dork-dimbulb would fail a fifth grade science class.
... EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the move was “basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion”.
Zeldin said that emissions standards were a “distraction” and that the policy change was “an economic issue”. “Repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,” he said.
“scrap a landmark finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment, severely curbing the federal government’s ability to combat climate change.”
Could ya ever compile a more loaded BullShiiiite statement than that?
Roe V Wade, anyone?
The NYT in their panic piece on this refers to the CO2 lie as a “bedrock scientific finding”.
How long before a leftie judge demands it be re-instated?
In other news, it’s occasionally hot in the fourth week in July in New England.
Trump’s fault.
The court had no authority to make the ruling. I think you have to go to the Spanish Inquisition to find a precedent for the clueless to rule on a scientific issue.
Turn a blank sheet of paper sideways. On the left write “weather event” in small letters, draw a circle around the words, and then draw a small arrow pointing to the right side. On the far right, write the words "manmade climate change” in small letters, draw a circle around the words, and then draw a small arrow pointing to the circle.
Is there not a large blank space in the middle? Have you ever seen a story which fills in this area? Have you ever read a story that uses words like sun and ocean, which are the two enormous engines determining temperature? Cannot the stories that you have seen be inserted into one or the other circles?
I will submit there is no evidence of man-made global warming because no adherent to the popular mythology will acknowledge the existence of the sun and oceans. All I have ever seen are fraudulent to accurate comments on weather events or physical phenomenon involving temperature followed by an assertion man-made global warming is the cause.
In the hard sciences of Math and Physics, the earth’s climate is known as an open system, meaning all influencers are probabilistic and not deterministic. Any assertions must be less than certain, but we are always treated to infallibility statements like those for the boiling point of water. Popular reasoning requires a complete disconnect between events and conclusions and is no more rigorous than Middle Age alchemy.
I have yet to find any article which attempts to measure the influence of the sun and ocean and then ascribe an increment to human activity. It was only since the late 70’s that it was possible to attempt to confirm changes in the sun’s radiance independent of the earth. Without a rigorous solution involving those two enormous engines, models created peer approved factors provide outcomes no more elegant than what is left behind when a brand new puppy is turned loose in a house decorated with white carpets and white furniture.
Even before that time any true scientist would have said data collected could not be analyzed, because people had known for centuries the sun was a variable star and it was not possible to separate influences for any mathematical computations. Now that it might be possible to separate the influence of the sun but not the oceans, the analysis of such complicated interactions are still highly problematic. Therefore, political rhetoric must be substituted for application of the scientific method.
https://realclimatescience.com/2025/07/grok-defending-the-climate-scam/#gsc.tab=0
This is an excellent blog about how they are playing with Science to prove a political point. It is worth reading, because it demonstrates their ‘scientific method’, which is no method at all. They use interpretative information as fact to fill in the blanks, and then considered the interpretation conclusion as fact. I once had an employee who was completely enamored with auto interpretation of terrabytes of data, and the program made it look like it was real with one touch of a keystroke. It took 5 minutes to realize this person didn’t interpret anything but just used the AI program to do it all.
Yes.
Your statements on this issue are excellent.
.
Thank you.
There are multiple problem with both your quote and your statement.
The USSC never ruled Carbon dioxide was a pollutant. The EPA got too cute and the USSC called them on it. Claiming that it was a pollutant but not needing to regulate it was what was declared wrong. The EPA were told to rule the carbon dioxide was or was not a pollutant, then regulate accordingly.
CO2 is plant food. The intellectually unwashed morons in this country should take a fifth grade earth science class and look up photosynthesis. The stupidity in America cannot be measured.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.