On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its intention to roll back the controversial 2009 endangerment finding.
The 2009 EPA rule deemed greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” CO2, however, is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and is also essential plant food. As a result, Democratic administrations have used this regulation as their North Star to impose their radical net-zero climate agenda on us. Their ultimate goal is to force a transition to unreliable solar and wind through measures like electric vehicle (EV) mandates and power plant closures.
Climate panicans who peddled this questionable science, naturally, were apoplectic with Administrator Zeldin’s announcement. Leading the chorus of panic was former Vice President and Mr. Climate Crisis himself, Al Gore.
“Today’s EPA announcement ignores the blindingly obvious reality of the climate crisis and sidelines the EPA’s own scientists and lawyers in favor of the interests and profits of the fossil fuel industry,” Gore tweeted. “Weakening safeguards that reduce greenhouse gas pollution will harm American competitiveness in a global economy that is moving away from oil, gas, and coal and will increase the suffering of communities that are overburdened by the dirty co-pollutants caused by burning fossil fuels.”
Gore’s tweet wasn’t the worst take out there. Ahead of the EPA’s announcement, Congressman Sean Casten (D-IL) accused President Trump of being akin to a mass murderer whose policy reversal will kill more people than actual mass murders Joseph Stalin, Mao Zhedong, and Adolf Hitler combined. He tweeted, “This is anti-scientific, immoral and economically irresponsible. I say this without hyperbole - when the history of this era is written, Donald Trump will have been responsible for more deaths than Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined.”
Alternatively, the Wall Street Journal editorial board printed a full-fledged endorsement of the policy change, calling the move “Climate Policy Liberation Day.” WSJ said it’ll be good to relitigate the 2007 Massachusetts vs. EPA decision that birthed this flawed regulation. The publication added “...the impact of CO2 on public welfare depends on its climate effects, which are uncertain and mediated by sundry other variables like cloud cover.”
As written, the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to regulate pollutants like sulfur dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Much to the chagrin of climate panicans, the EPA doesn’t have the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant because Congress hasn’t amended the CAA’s scope here.
The late Congressman John Dingell, who co-authored the CAA, lamented the 2007 SCOTUS decision, stating, “Like most members of this committee, I think the Supreme Court
came up with a very much erroneous decision on whether the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases. Like many members of this committee, I was present when we wrote that legislation, and we thought it was clear enough that we didn't clarify it, thinking that even the Supreme Court was not stupid enough to make that finding.''
This rule change is timely in a post-Chevron Doctrine world, as Congress- not federal agencies such as the EPA - should be the sole body to regulate or not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The science on CO2 isn’t settled and is open to debate. An accompanying Department of Energy (DOE) study published by the department’s Climate Working Group, entitled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, released a comprehensive study challenging the endangerment finding’s claim that CO2 is a pollutant. The study was authored by John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin (former Obama official), Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.
“Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial,” the DOE report explained.
The report added, “In contrast, CO2 is odorless, does not affect visibility and has no toxicological effects at ambient levels.”
Translation: climate alarmists are misleading the public claiming higher CO2 levels from continued fossil fuel usage allegedly making people sick.
Meteorologist and CFACT analyst Chris Martz, a great X/Twitter account, lauded the report, calling it “…the first comprehensive government scientific report to challenge the conventional narrative surrounding the climate change issue in a very long time, perhaps ever.”
Fixating on carbon emissions distracts the U.S. from identifying and solving more pressing environmental challenges. No country is currently projected to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, unless nations desire to destroy their economy to only achieve, at best, a 0.2 Celsius degree - not 1.5C - reduction. China - the world’s biggest polluter - isn’t scrutinized like America yet it can build new fossil fuel plants. But if the U.S. dares to approve new projects, it’s enabling a so-called climate crisis. The hypocrisy is astounding.
There’s good news on the environmental front. Without passing the Green New Deal-lite “Inflation Reduction Act,” our nation was already on track to reduce emissions thanks to innovation–not onerous regulations. Overall, the Earth is greener–even with continued fossil fuel usage. As NASA explained in 2016, “Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.”
Even the majority of Americans (54%) now agrees that environmental deregulation - including the endangerment finding rollback - won’t lead to degradation of our clean air, water, and land standards. Climate panicans have incorrectly predicted the world ending, glaciers melting, coral reefs dying. It’ll be no different here.
Keep calm and don’t be a climate panican. All will be fine.