By Jo Nova
If CO2 isn’t endangering lives, legally, there’s no reason to outlaw oil and gas
Marc Morano of ClimateDepot calls this the “holy grail” of the climate agenda. Most of the climate policies of the United States depend on “the Endangerment Finding”– so President Trump asked the new EPA head to look closely at it. This is the “finding” in 2009 that CO2 endangers the public, and that in turn means the EPA must regulate this “pollutant”. Thereby becoming the perfect excuse to allow the bureaucrats to regulate cars, trucks, planes, gas stoves and anything from hair dryers to home insulation.
The new EPA head just finished his 30 day consideration and recommends the Whitehouse rewrite the past conclusion entirely.
Ann Carlson of LegalPlanet says undoing the Endangerment Finding …”would mean full-blown warfare against all things climate.” She describes how the entire bureaucratic edifice crumbles if CO2 is not a pollutant:
If the Administration were to reverse the endangerment finding, greenhouse gases would no longer need to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Presumably, EPA would then simply move to revoke all of Biden’s major climate rules regulating cars, trucks, power plants, and oil and gas operations. As Joe Goffman, former Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation under President Biden, told Politico, recently, “taking away the 2009 endangerment finding would really make it almost a virtual formality to take down all the greenhouse rules for CO2 and methane,”
This great news, of course, blows some minds
From Bloomberg
“There is a lot of shocking stuff happening now, but to completely deny climate change and any federal obligation to control the pollution that’s driving it would be shocking and irresponsible,” said David Doniger, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Environmental advocates contend it also would be illegal. “Climate pollution is air pollution, and it is fueling a crisis,” said Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign. “There is no scientific basis – none – to claim otherwise.
Ann Carlson of LegalPlanet explains, bless her, that the EPA did all “the Science” and public consultation (after twenty years of indoctrination) to get this endangerment “finding” through in the first places so if Trump doesn’t follow the same process, they’ll get sued. She’s sure Trump would lose “because the science is… overwhelming”. Clearly, she has no idea ten times as many people die of the cold, (or even twenty times as many) or that the entire causal “evidence” for the dangers of CO2 depends on models that pretend the Sun is just a big light-globe. These models ignore the solar-electric field, the magnetic field, UV changes and the solar wind, and then, surprise, get nearly every prediction wrong.
Global warming saves 166,000 lives a year. It’s just a shame CO2 doesn’t cause more warming.
We’re just getting started
Believers are telling themselves all kinds of lies at the moment just to cope with the shock. They’re hoping that individual states will still be able to make self defeating climate rules, they’re warning it could take years for the EPA to get through the proper rule-making process. They’re comforting themselves that other legal doors will open if this one closes: even though teenagers might not be able to sue essential corporations for doing their jobs, “it could revive public nuisance laws” against oil producers. Praise the Lord!
Trump should not only set up a scientific group to investigate whether CO2 causes any harm, he should follow the evidence all the way. If the scientists consider the total cost-benefits of CO2, they’d easily show CO2 is an asset that feeds the poor, restores the forests, and improves life on Earth. Obviously, those companies and countries emitting CO2 are doing the world a favor. Coal, oil and gas plants should get tax deductions for their contributions.
Indeed, airconditioners save 20,000 lives in USA each year, so any products that increase the cost of electricity are the ones endangering lives…
h/t OldOzzie, David of Cooyal in Oz, RickWill, David+Wojick
“Believers are telling themselves all kinds of lies at the moment just to cope with the shock.”
Ironic, considering their belief was based on lies in the first place.
560
This is a minor shock compared to all the writs that will follow about whom is to blame for the cost of climate change mitigation.
Billions of believers’ dollar$ are at stake.
50
Francis Menton is a one of the leading lawyers exposing and fighting the CO2 is poison garbage and exposing all the climate change nonsense. He’s been doing this for a decade – great blog.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-1-26-how-to-rescind-the-endangerment-finding-in-a-way-that-will-stick
90
It’s time to de-mob the blob. Put it out to pasture.
280
Are you trying to kill the pasture?
153
It’s fun watching the climate doomsday religion go down in flames.
260
Ann Carlson of LegalPlanet says undoing the Endangerment Finding …
”would mean full-blown warfare against all things climate.”
“The Climate” is fine, so that’s okay.
It is certain that Ann and fellow travelers can find something else to harangue us about.
320
“It is certain that Ann and fellow travelers can find something else to harangue us about.”
Indeed.
But lots of folk may notice that they lied first time – and ignore them!
And the BBC’s collective head will explode.
And, possibly, Mr. Miliband – ‘Energy Security’ – may be banned from flying to the US [OR anywhere if he truly believes!].
Auto
190
Surely Mr Milliband will have to find a new job.
20
But who will compensate the poor taxpayers who had to pay much higher prices for decades and then watch as their countries have reduced their military spending?
Of course our environments have also been destroyed and all for more unreliable, toxic W & S that only lasts about 15 to 20 years and the entire mess has to be cleaned up and replaced again and again.
Wind only generates unreliable electricity for about 3.6 months of every year and Solar about 1.8 months. Does anyone think this is a good idea and shouldn’t we be building power plants that are reliable BASE-LOAD 24/7 365 days a year from now on?
Why don’t people understand that energy security is national security?
340
“Why don’t people understand that energy security is national security?”
One possibility is that we have had it too easy for too long.
Another possibility is that folk don’t care – as long as they get Strictly Bake-off or wherever the ‘traitors’ are..
A third possibility is that the far-left have so corrupted the education system that nobody much is able to connect the two.
Or, perhaps, some combination of all three.
Auto
200
No Auto. The Blob were achieving everything they planned to achieve. This whole hoax was orchestrated by the Communists to destroy the West. They could not do it with guns and bullets so they did it through the environmental movement. Name one environmental law that actually helped us. You can’t. But there a million and one laws that hinder our progress. Every time a project is delayed because of some environmental problem we all pay. Extra costs for infrastructure, business approvals and housing. Think of the cost of BASIX which is designed to reduce electricity consumption. Some things may be beneficial but many are not, think Snowy 2 and it’s $12 billion price tag for a battery.
50
What will the Chinese firms that invested in government guaranteed “renewables” in Australia have to say?
Is the presence of those three Chinese destroyers (with or without? nuclear subs?) intended to remind us?
30
Fantastic news.
I am keen to hear Dutton’s response (alternate PM of the fake conservative Liberal Party).
Just as he reaffirmed his commitment to the Paris Accords straight after TRUMP abandoned them, I expect he will reaffirm his belief in the supposed dangers of this essential life-giving trace gas.
So it gets Australia nowhere except continued destruction of the economy with the Uniparty’s fanatical commitment to “renewables”.
320
It’s tough for him David. He probably thinks he’s got to get involved in all the climate change theory crap. Without a science background he would flounder. Whereas, he should at the very least take the Bjorn Lomborg approach. Maybe believes in the science to a point, but realises any mitigation policies are too expensive or a waste of time. This is what the LNP should have been doing for the last 20 years, but got caught up in all the hysteria. Oh and Malcolm Turnbull didn’t help either.
140
Too many wets in the Liberal Party, time to turn the Nationals into the right wing preferred party, At least they understand Climate and the BS of Windmills and Power Lines going across productive farm lands. The libs are too busy trying to fight Labor in the cities to examine the FACTS.
31
The Nationals are every bit a part of the Uniparty as the Libs. The only way out for Australia is to dump the Establishment parties and elect truly democratic and non-aligned candidates like Gerrard Rennick.
Dutton has already showed his hand as a WEF shill by supporting legislation on censorship and personal surveillance by government.
10
Albo and Bowen would use his “climate denial” as a weapon in the election. Far better to stay quiet now and act in government.
20
The damage caused to Western economies by the anthropogenic global warming fr@ud can’t be undone, and outside of TRUMP’s United States, there are few signs of progress against the fr@ud from other Western countries and absolutely none from Australia (any Uniparty faction).
At least the United States can move ahead now. It might become the sole viable Western country.
310
And with the United States as the sole remaining viable Western country, there’ll be a huge power vacuum from the failed Western countries/blocs like Europe, Canada, Australia/NZ etc. and who will then take over?
Well thanks to the red-red and the red-green alliance between traitorous Western Leftists and the Chicomms and the fanatical followers of the seventh century warlord, it will be those two. We already see that now in Western countries apart from TRUMP’s America.
170
And that’s probably why forward-thinking TRUMP wants to make Canada the 51st state (or multiple states) and also wants to buy Greenland (which the US has been trying to purchase since 1867 when they purchased Alaska).
He wasn’t joking, he can see where all this is heading.
He doesn’t want a Canada run by the Chicomms or followers of the warlord, and wants a forward staging post (Greenland) to protect against attack from a hostile Europe under rule of the Chicomms or terrorists.
80
Now picture what this will do for Oz, we buy and trade using the US dollar as a basis of payment. If the US opt out of the scam, then you can expect that they will start to have cheap electricity again, industry will prosper and the value of the US dollar, (relative to nations that don’t get off the scam), will soar.
So, the Oz dollar plummets in terms of exchange values with the ‘prospering’ world and we’ll slide deeper and deeper into recession.
We’ll always be able to sell our dirt and our farm produce to the world but the locals here might find it becomes incredibly expensive to buy anything made overseas, or even made here if an export opportunity for that product exists.
If you think our standard of living is slipping now, wait for the world to walk away from us. We’ll be lucky to be part owners of the companies that will be exporting iron ore and coal within 5 years. They’ll be sold to foreign investors to pay off our debts.
And then the rules will change, how long before the government allow cheap foreign labour to replace the unionised groups.
But at least the fake nail and $2 shops will survive, even if they rename every year, becoming $20 shops, $50 shops and then $100 shops before our peso gets socialised, for our own good..
110
But, but, but, in News.com just a few minutes ago the Climate Council warns that most of Australia will be uninhabitable by 2090 if nothings done.
Oh well,
210
And the CCC, here in the UK, has said much the same if we don’t all get heatpumps by next weekend, & give up meat, cars, flying and fornicating IIRC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70ekknr2rwo
Still don’t know who appointed the CCC – but they could easily be unappointed!
Auto
221
Here in Oz, if memory serves, (always fallible ) the Climate Council was Labour Gov funded when it was set up, this funding was subsequently taken away by the next Liberal gov so it then morphed into a private think tank funded by woke millionaires and by donations. Apparently the few announcements of doom and gloom every month or so provides a handsome income for its directors.
20
Any US AID funding shown up yet?
10
well I won’t be living in Oz in 2090, so I guess they are partly right.
40
Interesting that they have picked a year so far out that nobody will notice when they are wrong again. All previous predictions were only for a few years and quickly proved wrong.
70
How much did the Natural Resources Defense Council receive annually from USAID?
120
The amusing part about all of this is that the green climate zealots can still donate all their own money to the cause and go ‘zero carbon’ on an individual basis without any government regulations. In fact, we should encourage them to follow this path in life, so they’ll own nothing and be happy and that will make the rest of us happy too :).
370
The Left are either stupid, or evil, but probably both, to keep wanting destruction of the West via energy starvation as it continues to be obvious that there is no climate crisis.
250
Why do we want to risk everything or perhaps return to 1950 when global life expectancy was just 46 years, deaths from extreme weather events were much higher, much higher percentage worked on the land, much higher percentage had fewer calories and starvation then was much higher?
Anyone can easily find the good news today online, so why do they tell lies and try to extract every last dollar to waste on toxic energy that will only hurt the poor and certainly weaken our OECD countries?
None of this is difficult to find or understand, so what is their real agenda?
190
This is exactly what is needed !
But the climate cultists BELIEVE that the dogma must not be questioned . There never was any actual science , only ” THE SCIENCE ” .
Anyone who actually asked questions was shouted down as an apostate ( climate denier ) .
The root cause of this mess is an assorted bunch of people who for various reasons want western civilization to be shut down or destroyed ( mostly Marxists ) or even radical environmentalists who want all post stone age human activity shut down . As it was cooling in the 1970’s they were “certain” that CO2 would cause another ice age and we would all freeze . Then when by the 1990’s it was clear that the ” cooling ” thing wasn’t happening , they quietly switched to ” Global Warming ” . They constructed a pseudo science around CO2 being a ” Greenhouse ” gas . Based loosely on a desk-top experiment done in the 1890’s that showed that CO2 could absorb long wave IR . Of course it wasn’t enough to say that CO2 was a villain , they had to show that there was too much CO2 and that it was all our fault . Now so deeply into fantasy land that almost anything could be just made up and then repeatedly asserted by a compliant media . The claims now being asserted by the cultists are beyond absurd .
The reality is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are mostly driven by ocean temperatures . For most of planet Earth’s existence CO2 levels have been much higher than today , if anything there is a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere . Of all CO2 entering the atmosphere each year , only about 3% comes from human activity . The other 97% is from natural sources . Henry’s law tells us that if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased , then the rate of absorption by the oceans would increase in response .
CO2 plays almost no part in determining the temperature we experience . As a ” Greenhouse” gas CO2 only has 2 narrow absorption bands within the LWIR band . Water vapor has an absorption band that covers most of the LWIR band . There is NO ” hot spot ” in the upper troposphere , that has never been detected . Basic physics tells us that electromagnetic radiation from a cool object ( such as the upper troposphere ) cannot add warmth to something that is already warmer than the source of that radiated energy ( such as the air at ground level or the ground itself . Computer models are nothing more than a buffer between the propaganda and the gullible people who are supposed to believe the BS and never question it ( after all , the computer models are ” very complicated ” ) .
In short , the whole thing always was a load of BS and the cultists should all be frog-marched off to jail .
131
A growing proportion of the scientific community believe that we are standing on the precipice of complete ecosystem collapse.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/conservation-science/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full
What would they know, they are only domain experts.
130
Bzzzt!
That sounds like “consensus science”.
That’s not how science is done. It’s not even science.
220
DM
“A growing proportion of the scientific community…”
Some vague truth in that – they are growing older
20
– that’s a newey. Sounds like it’s moved on from climate catastrophe, apocalypse etc. Gotta keep that gravy train puffing along.
140
FWIW!
“Complete ecosystem collapse”
A while back I posted a link from “According to Hoyt” where the succession of climate more catastrophic names was likened to sign changes at a bad Chinese restaurant.
Sounds like the sign writer just got another job
70
Imagine if all those gazillions of dollars wasted on the “catastrophic CO2” fr@ud had instead been spent on habitat and biodiversity preservation, and restoration and reinforcement of the global intellectual climate.
130
Aw Simon, I feel for you and your brainwashed comrades. The sky is NOT falling. The world is NOT ending.
Run off now screaming loudly and get the help you need.
110
‘The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts.’
Lies, damn lies and statistics by the experts.
70
Is that the “social” science communidy?
30
Paul Ehrlich is still “on message”.
00
Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw, the same old worn out we are almost doomed shrieking, it loses force after 30 years of using it you need to invent new, we are doomed screams.
Where is the Hot Spot It has been 30 years waiting where is it hiding Simon in your bedroom closet?
When is the Positive Feedback Loop starting I am positive this growing prediction failure will give you negative feedbacks….
When is Sea level going to meet any of the IPCC/well paid government scientists stunningly bad predictions?
How come Tornadoes and Hurricanes isn’t listening and responding to the IPCC predictions, it has been 35 years now Simon did you gobble them up…
Maybe you need to stop fooling yourselves about what doesn’t exist.
10
“Endangerment Finding” towards CO2 is clearly a danger. Overturning this legislation will probably be very difficult and time consuming but I live in hope!
100
If it was truly dangerous, you’d be stopped from producing it.
And we know what that means. Mandates…..
30
CO2 drives respiration. Our limit to hold our breath is driven by CO2 accumulation. So in effect CO2 NOT being liberated (expelled into the environment) endangers us dearly. Like most things “Progressive”, the truth is the opposite of their mantras.
120
I have said it before, the Cunnamulla area of Queensland, just 3 meters below the surface is 600 to 700mm of old rain forest. That era was the end of Australian mega fauna some 11,000 years ago. This enormous climate change event happened when Co2 was a steady 3 parts per 10,000 of the atmosphere, its now 4 parts per 10,000. This rapid decay in rainfall appears to have happened around the same time the Sahara desert went back to grasslands before it returned to the current desert 4000 years ago roughly. Ross Gargaut andI both studied mathematical economics under the same professor, I have unsuccessfully requested him to show me the links between Co2 and climate change!! His non answer convinces me I am right.!!!!
150
Why do you rely on a non answer to convince yourself you are right. Who is the mental midget who thinks CO2 causes an energy imbalance on Earth?
You can go ta the NOAA sea level site and choose any location to verify that there is no change in the rate of sea level rise since the records began. Her are a couple:
\https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9410170_meantrend.png
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/170-011_meantrend.png
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/680-140_meantrend.png
The fellow you mention is either a hoaxer who depends on the hoax for their income or a useful idiot siding with the Climate Change™ religious zealots.
So it becomes obvious that there is a no acceleration in warming and it started well before atmospheric CO2 started to accelerate.
20
RickWill that means that by 2125 that gauge level could be reading just 3.2 inches higher SL or 80 mm in another 100 years. Shock horror, everybody panic.
Yet these loonies want to WASTE 100s of TRILLIONs of $ for ZERO change?
20
Amazing that we’ve seen a big drop in Maternal ratio deaths after childbirths around the world since 1980s.
India has seen a 500% drop and a big drop globally.
Aussie’s Maternal deaths are very low today and also Israel, Japan, Singapore etc.
I’ve selected a number of countries to check on.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maternal-mortality-ratio-who-gho?tab=chart&country=PNG~OWID_WRL~SUR~AUS~WHO_EUR~USA~GBR~ISR~DEU~FRA~CAN~JPN~CHN~SGP~IND
30
When I first heard the story of man made CO2 driven dangerous global warming from fossil fuel combustion, it was interesting but seemed odd. There were no obvious problems with the weather in the last hundreds years and that included two devastating world wars, atom bombs and more.
The core proposition was that mankind was producing an increase in CO2 with fossil fuels. Another implied proposition was that CO2 levels were random, not in equilibrium of any sort, which seemed odd.
So I wondered whether radio carbon dating was used to check because if the 50% increase in CO2 was man made, C14 dilution should be 33%.
Ancient carbon, out of the atmospehre for 150 million years is not radioactive.
(C14 is made in the upper atmosphere by constant cosmic rays and has been constant for thousands of years. It is only one molecule in a trillion, but being unstable with a half life of 5740 years, we can measure it easily.)
The very first paper I found was New Zealander physicist and of the Royal Society, G.J.Fergusson.. He published in the Royal Society and ended the speculation on fossil fuel CO2. It was only 2.03%+/-0.15%. Whether CO2 was a problem, it was absolutely certain by direct measurement that there was very little fossil fuel CO2 in the air (And the figure today in 2025 is still 2%)
I thought that would end it. But with the Democratic party, the UN, the WMO all on the case, it became a money maker. And like the Wuhan flu, conferred magical power and status on politicians everywhere. And the climatebaggers closed in.
So here we are 2025, 37 years after the scientific discovery in 1988 by innumerate Presidential Candidate Al Gore and his IPCC and the inconvenient truth is that it was all made up.
Worst is that the 50 Trillion$ and more could have been spent on Fusion and we would have endless commandable, free power. Or Thorium reactors, just as good. And not 500,000 windmills which don’t work and will only last 20 years before they are a major pollution problem.
130
As for declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant, that takes real imagination. All living things are made from CO2 and H2O and precious little else. From the lowliest bacterium to the Blue whale and even fungi, all living things breathe out CO2 and run on solar energy captured by CO2.
I cannot believe any biological scientist would consider CO2 as pollution, but Al Gore chanced on a chasm between physical scientists who generally know no biology and biochemistry and biologists who lack physical chemistry. Plus physicists who don’t know either and engineers who want to invent a solution.
And so Climate Science was born, a hybrid of ignorance and opportunism and certainly nothing to do with meteorology. And the religion of Climate Science, Climate Scientology was developed into a million papers on why Al Gore was a prophet. It was his great interest, but Billionaire Gore’s spelling was different.
130
Don’t know the full history of that CO2 endangerment proclamation, but I’m wondering if it was part of some omnibus type legislation rushed through the US senate on a Friday afternoon. Maybe part of some package which included funding for cancer research or equivalent. Because the first thing any half decent biologist says after they learn CO2 was proclaimed a pollutant is to say WTF- how can it be, it’s the backbone of all life on earth? Bit like banning water, totally non sensical.
80
I don’t think it was ever put through a legstative proccess. As I understand, it was/is bureaucratic policy. It’s not a law as such. They just declared co2 a pollutant and then claimed the 1973 Clean Air act as giving them broad authority to reduce air pollution. The EPA is in the executive branch, so exective policies created by bureaucratic fiat can be undone the same way. Once it’s no longer declared a pollutant then they have no authority to regulate it.
It doesn’t need to go through a repeal process. The president has authority over the executive branch by the Constitution, so the courts have limited ability to interfere.
90
It is now 16 years since EPA made the finding. There has been an acceleration in the rate of fossil fuel consumption globally (thank you China, India and Indonesia) but not a single harmful forecast materialised.
The notion that CO2 causes an energy imbalance on Earth is nonsense but, irrespective of that fact, CO2 has been highly beneficial to biomass productivity and global greening. There is no “endangerment” and US regulations do not alter how much fossil fuel China consumes.
Any EPA official trying to retain the endangerment finding can expect a notice in due course – YOUR FIRED!
80
Thanks Dave, that sort of explains it. But, leads to so many other questions. You might be wondering why a bunch of Aussies are so interested in all of this. The father of a mate of mine once said “ American sneezes and the rest of the world catches a cold”. That still applies today and with modern media is now probably more pronounced.
50
IIRC the US EPA was given a little inch and grabbed a little mile
50
A couple of decades or so ago, a significant number of US university students signed a petition to ban the “dangerous” chemical di-hydrogen monoxide.
The intellectual elite displaying their ignorance of basic chemistry!
50
“As for declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant,”
And the way carbon dioxide morphs into “carbon” so effortlessly. Never a question is asked how polies or commentators can actually confuse these totally different things.
When I hear Bowen talk of carbon in the atmosphere, you know the black stuff that’s a solid and very much heavier than air versus the invisible stuff that’s as you say, the very gaseous thing of life.
Still, like what’s his face declaring that ivermectin was “horse dewormer” and just forgetting to mention that the discoverers of this life saving drug were awarded the Nobel Prize for HUMAN medicine.
Never ever let the facts get in the way.
80
It’s an ignorance of chemistry. Bowen like Chalmers and Millbrand are ‘economists’.
They know nothing of real science and the Periodic Table unless it’s related to superannuation. Elements such as Carbon are beyond them. Compound interest too. You get compounds in Chemistry.
Dr. Patrick Moore one of the founders of Greenpeace was an ecologist who knew chemistry and claims that in his time with Greenpeace, he only met one person who knew any chemistry. This group actually banned the element Chlorine. Salt. PVC.
Perhaps they should just ban the entire Periodic table as pollutants? I would base it on colour. Carbon as in coal is black, so it is evil. Unless it is diamond, in which case it is good. They are not related.
60
Chalmers degree is in political sciences – he is no economist at all
20
Love it! Not only is Trump bad orange man that sends out mean tweets (or whatever they’re called on Truth Social), he’s now the orange man climate denier. Because if you read the articles about the new Trump administration in the MSM, they all still have that level of cynicism running through them. What I really like is that Trump and some of these appointed bureaucratic heads just say – “man made climate change is the biggest scam”. No need to get bogged down in all the scientific theory etc, it’s a scam.
40
Cameron Stewart, the Australian’s chief Trump hater has a favorite line that Trump is ‘deeply flawed’. This morning he had a new one that Donald Trump is ‘deeply erratic’.
30
There has been a massive decline in famine decadal deaths globally since 1960 and today only a few parts of Africa seem to have famine deaths.
But Africa’s population has increased by over 1200 million since 1950 and life expectancy in 1950 just 37 years and about 64 years today.
So what’s the problem with Africa’s climate since 1960? Anyone have any coherent or sensible ideas?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-from-famines-by-decade
10
Congress never okayed the engangerment finding. So if it okays the non-endangerment finding then activist judges will find things a lot harder than they think.
30
Congress will have to deal with the inflation reduction act and that will get a lot of pushback because there are a whole lot of organisations into that particular subsidy trough.
The EPA position only removes regulations covering CO2. There is a great deal more to undo.
Big legal battles pending because there is a lot of money in subsidies and cost of carbon.
40
The Holy Order of Anthropogenic Climate Zealotry (HOACZ) is in a state of chaos – it is coming to an end. It is rare in history for a common man to make such an historic impact on religious zealotry.
If Trump can get Trump Gaza then he is well on the way to imploding another order of religious zealotry:
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/donald-trump-shares-aigenerated-video-showcasing-gaza-vision/video/d566ed0547e7df9ab78d63ffb77e0d4d
30
Climate alarmists can not stay afloat,
As Donald Trump is rocking their boat,
By listing all the flaws,
In their CO2 cause,
Giving skeptics good reason to gloat.
90
How long before Aussies can say to the Climate Blob Down Under “I love the smell of napalm in the morning”.
40
Humans today are existing in a tiny 0.1% window since the UK started the Industrial Revolution using fossil fuels.
So far this tiny window of opportunity has released most people from very hard work, and sometimes very short brutal lives.
Life expectancy was just 29 years in 1770 and population under 1 billion, but 8.1 bn today and life expectancy 73 years and much higher in high income OECD countries.
That 0.1% opportunity window quickly saw the invention of all of our modern conveniences and we’ll soon need much more energy to drive AI etc to 2100 and a population of about 10.5 billion.
Amazing that the first powered Wright brothers flight was accomplished in 1903 and yet Yuri Gagarin completed the first space flight in 1961 and the USA landed on the moon in 1969 and Armstrong and Aldrin actually walked on the surface.
Today we think fully evolved Humans have existed for about 300,000 years according to most sources and 99.9% of that time was before the
UK flicked on the switch to start the Industrial Revolution.
20
And a similar thing is happening to DEI. It’s vanishing as if it never existed.
But Climate Change is different. Soon environmental activists will be demanding we do something about those awful bird chomping whale killing windmills.
20
And if coal is still dirty we can sell it to China and India. It’ll be their problem.
10