EPA Officially Rescinds The CO2 Endangerment Finding
Yesterday, the US Environmental Protection Agency officially rescinded the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding, which many believe should never have happened in the first place
Origins and Legal Mandate
Administrative Process
- Scientific Analysis: The determination was based on a nearly 200-page analysis of climate ‘science’.
- Public Participation: The agency held a 60-day public comment period, receiving more than 380,000 comments, and conducted two public hearings in Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington.
- Final Ruling: On December 7, 2009, then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed the final findings, concluding that six ‘greenhouse gases’—including carbon dioxide and methane—threatened the health of current and future generations.
This finding was based on assessments of government-funded climate science that, while promoted in mainstream media and political discussions, was not universally endorsed in the scientific community.
It served as the legal backbone for various regulations governing emissions from vehicles, factories, and power plants, fostering a regulatory state that many argue has stifled economic growth.
Supporters of the Endangerment Finding claim that ‘greenhouse gases’ lead to ‘climate change’, ‘extreme’ weather events, and rising sea levels. However, skeptics counter that climate models predicting such dire outcomes ran ‘too hot’ and overestimated future warming and failed to account for natural climate variability.
Not forgetting that all 41 predictions of climate disaster since the 1980s have utterly failed to appear.
Would you support a team with an 0 & 41 record?
The rescinding of this finding is viewed as a step toward challenging the hegemony of the alleged “climate consensus” that has dominated environmental policy for over a decade.
The Repeal Announcement
In a press conference announcing the decision, President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin emphasized the importance of removing what they described as excessive regulations.
Zeldin remarked that the Endangerment Finding imposed a hidden cost on consumers, estimated to exceed $1.3 trillion. Proponents of the repeal advocate for a regulatory environment that allows for greater flexibility and innovation among businesses, particularly in the energy sector.
By rescinding the Endangerment Finding, the EPA opens the door for greater reliance on market forces to guide environmental outcomes, rather than heavy-handed government regulation.
This change is anticipated to reduce compliance costs for businesses, enabling them to invest more in growth initiatives rather than spending resources on navigating a complex regulatory landscape.
Implications of the Repeal
Regulatory Environment
The rescission of the Endangerment Finding effectively dismantles federal emission standards for vehicles and industries. This includes the ambitious targets for emissions reductions that were previously established under the Clean Power Plan and various vehicle emission standards.
Skeptics argue that such stringent regulations often yield marginal benefits while imposing severe economic hardships. They argue carbon dioxide is not a pollutant because every high school student knows CO2 is actually plant food.
For example, higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles have led to increased vehicle costs for consumers without delivering environmental improvements. The rationale behind the repeal is that empowering consumers to choose more affordable vehicles, even if they are less efficient, can lead to genuine improvements in economic conditions without compromising public safety.
Economic Growth
Critics of heavy regulation argue that the previous administration’s approach created an economic burden that stifled growth. By rolling back emissions regulations, the current administration is expected to unleash entrepreneurial activity in the energy sector, particularly in ‘fossil fuels’ and in emerging technologies that have not yet been stymied by regulatory pressures.
Many proponents of the repeal believe that a flourishing economy will lead to better environmental outcomes in the long run because more CO2 in the atmosphere means more plant food.
As NASA shows,’From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide‘
The idea of calling plant food a ‘pollutant’ should have rung warning bells everywhere, but sadly it did not. Either that or those warning bells were deliberately ignored, and if that is the case, we have to ask why?
Public and Environmental Response
The response from ‘environmental’ organizations has been immediate and vehement. Many view the rescission of the Endangerment Finding as a dangerous move that could lead to increased pollution and environmental degradation.
However, skeptics argue that such organizations often prioritize regulatory frameworks to secure their funding rather than empowering real-world solutions. They contend that the emphasis placed on ‘anthropogenic climate change’ overshadows other pressing environmental issues, such as deforestation, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss.
They argue that resources would be better spent on tackling these tangible challenges rather than adhering to stringent regulations based on uncertain climate models.
Critical Perspective on Climate Models
Many skeptics have raised concerns regarding the reliability of climate models used to support the case for the Endangerment Finding. They argue that these models often exhibit significant uncertainty and are based on various assumptions about future technological advancements, economic growth, and societal behavior.
Moreover, observed climate data shows climate models fail to accurately predict temperature trends. Critics assert that such discrepancies undermine the validity of the Endangerment Finding’s rationale.
They argue that a more nuanced understanding of climate dynamics—taking into account natural climate variability—should inform our approach to environmental regulation.
Conclusion: A New Direction in Environmental Policy
The rescinding of the CO2 Endangerment Finding marks a pivotal moment in U.S. environmental policy, signaling a departure from the regulatory approach that has dominated for the past decade.
By prioritizing economic growth over heavy regulation, the current administration offers a vision that embodies skepticism toward accepted climate dogmas. And in science, the default position should be skepticism, until there is verifiable, repeatable proof.
Skeptics argue that this new approach could lead to innovative solutions that genuinely address environmental challenges without the constraints of overregulation.
As America moves forward, the ongoing dialogue surrounding climate science and environmental policy will undoubtedly play a critical role in shaping the nation’s future.
The full EPA statement can be seen here epa.gov/newsreleases
This article was created jointly by your PSI editors and ChapGPT
Some bold emphasis added