Climate Politics

2025 The Poisonous Tree of Climate Change

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Now that Trump’s EPA is determined to reconsider its past GHG Endangerment Finding, it’s important to understand how we got here.  First of all there was the EPA’s theory basis for the finding:

The 3 Lines of Evidence can all be challenged by scientific studies since the 2009 ruling.  The temperature records have been adjusted over time and the validity of the measurements are uncertain.  The issues with climate models give many reasons to regard them as unfit for policy making.  And the claim that rising CO2 caused rising Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) is dubious, both on grounds that CO2 Infrared activity declines with higher levels, and that temperature changes precede CO2 changes on all time scales from last month’s observations to ice core proxies spanning millennia.

Thus all the arrows claiming causal relations are flawed.  The rise of atmospheric CO2 is mostly nature’s response to warming, rather than the other way around. And the earth warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA) is a welcome recovery from the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.  Claims of extreme weather  and rising sea levels ignore that such events are ordinary in earth history.  And the health warnings are contrived in attributing them to barely noticeable warming temperatures.

Background on the Legal Precedents

This post was triggered by noticing an event some years ago.  Serial valve turner Ken Ward was granted a new trial by the Washington State Court of Appeals, and he was allowed to present a “necessity defense.”  This astonishingly bad ruling is reported approvingly by Kelsey Skaggs at Pacific Standard Why the Necessity Defense is Critical to the Climate Struggle. Excerpt below with my bolds.

A climate activist who was convicted after turning off an oil pipeline won the right in April to argue in a new trial that his actions were justified. The Washington State Court of Appeals ruled that Ken Ward will be permitted to explain to a jury that, while he did illegally stop the flow of tar sands oil from Canada into the United States, his action was necessary to slow catastrophic climate change.

The Skaggs article goes on to cloak energy vandalism with the history of civil disobedience against actual mistreatment and harm.  Nowhere is it recognized that the brouhaha over climate change concerns future imaginary harm.  How could lawyers and judges get this so wrong?  It can only happen when an erroneous legal precedent can be cited to spread a poison in the public square.  So I went searching for the tree producing all of this poisonous fruit. The full text of the April 8, 2019, ruling is here.

A paper at Stanford Law School (where else?) provides a good history of the necessity defense as related to climate change activism The Climate Necessity Defense: Proof and Judicial Error in Climate Protest Cases.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

My perusal of the text led me to the section where the merits are presented.

The typical climate necessity argument is straightforward. The ongoing effects of climate change are not only imminent, they are currently occurring; civil disobedience has been proven to contribute to the mitigation of these harms, and our political and legal systems have proven uniquely ill-equipped to deal with the climate crisis, thus creating the necessity of breaking the law to address it. As opposed to many classic political necessity defendants, such as anti-nuclear power protesters, climate activists can point to the existing (rather than speculative) nature of the targeted harm and can make a more compelling case that their protest activity (for example, blocking fossil fuel extraction) actually prevents some quantum of harm produced by global warming. pg.78

What?  On what evidence is such confidence based?  Later on (page 80), comes this:

Second, courts’ focus on the politics of climate change distracts from the scientific issues involved in climate necessity cases. There may well be political disagreement over the realities and effects of climate change, but there is little scientific disagreement, as the Supreme Court has noted.131

131 Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 499 (2007) (“The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized . . . [T]he relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a precipitate rise in sea levels by the end of the century, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in water storage in winter snowpack in mountainous regions with direct and important economic consequences, and an increase in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events.”).

The roots of this poisonous tree are found in citing the famous Massachusetts v. E.P.A. (2007) case decided by a 5-4 opinion of Supreme Court justices (consensus rate: 56%).  But let’s see in what context lies that reference and whether it is a quotation from a source or an issue addressed by the court.  The majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens, with dissenting opinions from Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.  All these documents are available at sureme.justia.com Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

From the Majority Opinion:

A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a “greenhouse gas.” Source: National Research Council:

National Research Council 2001 report titled Climate Change: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (NRC Report), which, drawing heavily on the 1995 IPCC report, concluded that “[g]reenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.” NRC Report 1.

Calling global warming “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,”[Footnote 1] a group of States,[Footnote 2] local governments,[Footnote 3] and private organizations,[Footnote 4] alleged in a petition for certiorari that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.  Specifically, petitioners asked us to answer two questions concerning the meaning of §202(a)(1) of the Act: whether EPA has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if so, whether its stated reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statute.

EPA reasoned that climate change had its own “political history”: Congress designed the original Clean Air Act to address local air pollutants rather than a substance that “is fairly consistent in its concentration throughout the world’s atmosphere,” 68 Fed. Reg. 52927 (emphasis added); declined in 1990 to enact proposed amendments to force EPA to set carbon dioxide emission standards for motor vehicles, ibid. (citing H. R. 5966, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (1990)); and addressed global climate change in other legislation, 68 Fed. Reg. 52927. Because of this political history, and because imposing emission limitations on greenhouse gases would have even greater economic and political repercussions than regulating tobacco, EPA was persuaded that it lacked the power to do so. Id., at 52928. In essence, EPA concluded that climate change was so important that unless Congress spoke with exacting specificity, it could not have meant the agency to address it.

Having reached that conclusion, EPA believed it followed that greenhouse gases cannot be “air pollutants” within the meaning of the Act. See ibid. (“It follows from this conclusion, that [greenhouse gases], as such, are not air pollutants under the [Clean Air Act’s] regulatory provisions …”).

Even assuming that it had authority over greenhouse gases, EPA explained in detail why it would refuse to exercise that authority. The agency began by recognizing that the concentration of greenhouse gases has dramatically increased as a result of human activities, and acknowledged the attendant increase in global surface air temperatures. Id., at 52930. EPA nevertheless gave controlling importance to the NRC Report’s statement that a causal link between the two “ ‘cannot be unequivocally established.’ ” Ibid. (quoting NRC Report 17). Given that residual uncertainty, EPA concluded that regulating greenhouse gas emissions would be unwise. 68 Fed. Reg. 52930.

The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. Indeed, the NRC Report itself—which EPA regards as an “objective and independent assessment of the relevant science,” 68 Fed. Reg. 52930—identifies a number of environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms, including “the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, [and] the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years … .” NRC Report 16.

In sum—at least according to petitioners’ uncontested affidavits—the rise in sea levels associated with global warming has already harmed and will continue to harm Massachusetts. The risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is nevertheless real. That risk would be reduced to some extent if petitioners received the relief they seek. We therefore hold that petitioners have standing to challenge the EPA’s denial of their rulemaking petition.[Footnote 24]

In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844 (1984). We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

My Comment: Note that the citations of scientific proof were uncontested assertions by petitioners.  Note also that the majority did not rule that EPA must make an endangerment finding:  “We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.”

From the Minority Dissenting Opinion

It is not at all clear how the Court’s “special solicitude” for Massachusetts plays out in the standing analysis, except as an implicit concession that petitioners cannot establish standing on traditional terms. But the status of Massachusetts as a State cannot compensate for petitioners’ failure to demonstrate injury in fact, causation, and redressability.

When the Court actually applies the three-part test, it focuses, as did the dissent below, see 415 F. 3d 50, 64 (CADC 2005) (opinion of Tatel, J.), on the State’s asserted loss of coastal land as the injury in fact. If petitioners rely on loss of land as the Article III injury, however, they must ground the rest of the standing analysis in that specific injury. That alleged injury must be “concrete and particularized,” Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S., at 560, and “distinct and palpable,” Allen, 468 U. S., at 751 (internal quotation marks omitted). Central to this concept of “particularized” injury is the requirement that a plaintiff be affected in a “personal and individual way,” Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S., at 560, n. 1, and seek relief that “directly and tangibly benefits him” in a manner distinct from its impact on “the public at large,” id., at 573–574. Without “particularized injury, there can be no confidence of ‘a real need to exercise the power of judicial review’ or that relief can be framed ‘no broader than required by the precise facts to which the court’s ruling would be applied.’ ” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975) (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 221–222 (1974)).

The very concept of global warming seems inconsistent with this particularization requirement. Global warming is a phenomenon “harmful to humanity at large,” 415 F. 3d, at 60 (Sentelle, J., dissenting in part and concurring in judgment), and the redress petitioners seek is focused no more on them than on the public generally—it is literally to change the atmosphere around the world.

If petitioners’ particularized injury is loss of coastal land, it is also that injury that must be “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical,” Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 560 (internal quotation marks omitted), “real and immediate,” Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted), and “certainly impending,” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 158 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As to “actual” injury, the Court observes that “global sea levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming” and that “[t]hese rising seas have already begun to swallow Massachusetts’ coastal land.” Ante, at 19. But none of petitioners’ declarations supports that connection. One declaration states that “a rise in sea level due to climate change is occurring on the coast of Massachusetts, in the metropolitan Boston area,” but there is no elaboration. Petitioners’ Standing Appendix in No. 03–1361, etc. (CADC), p. 196 (Stdg. App.). And the declarant goes on to identify a “significan[t]” non-global-warming cause of Boston’s rising sea level: land subsidence. Id., at 197; see also id., at 216. Thus, aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners’ 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts coastal land from 20th century global sea level increases. It is pure conjecture.

The Court ignores the complexities of global warming, and does so by now disregarding the “particularized” injury it relied on in step one, and using the dire nature of global warming itself as a bootstrap for finding causation and redressability.

Petitioners are never able to trace their alleged injuries back through this complex web to the fractional amount of global emissions that might have been limited with EPA standards. In light of the bit-part domestic new motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions have played in what petitioners describe as a 150-year global phenomenon, and the myriad additional factors bearing on petitioners’ alleged injury—the loss of Massachusetts coastal land—the connection is far too speculative to establish causation.

From Justice Scalia’s Dissenting Opinion

Even on the Court’s own terms, however, the same conclusion follows. As mentioned above, the Court gives EPA the option of determining that the science is too uncertain to allow it to form a “judgment” as to whether greenhouse gases endanger public welfare. Attached to this option (on what basis is unclear) is an essay requirement: “If,” the Court says, “the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so.” Ante, at 31. But EPA has said precisely that—and at great length, based on information contained in a 2001 report by the National Research Council (NRC) entitled Climate Change Science:

“As the NRC noted in its report, concentrations of [greenhouse gases (GHGs)] are increasing in the atmosphere as a result of human activities (pp. 9–12). It also noted that ‘[a] diverse array of evidence points to a warming of global surface air temperatures’ (p. 16). The report goes on to state, however, that ‘[b]ecause of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a [causal] linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale’ (p. 17).

“The NRC also observed that ‘there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of [GHGs] and aerosols’ (p. 1). As a result of that uncertainty, the NRC cautioned that ‘current estimate of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).’ Id. It further advised that ‘[r]educing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of [GHGs] and aerosols and (2) the so-called “feedbacks” that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in [GHGs].’ Id.

“The science of climate change is extraordinarily complex and still evolving. Although there have been substantial advances in climate change science, there continue to be important uncertainties in our understanding of the factors that may affect future climate change and how it should be addressed. As the NRC explained, predicting future climate change necessarily involves a complex web of economic and physical factors including: Our ability to predict future global anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and aerosols; the fate of these emissions once they enter the atmosphere (e.g., what percentage are absorbed by vegetation or are taken up by the oceans); the impact of those emissions that remain in the atmosphere on the radiative properties of the atmosphere; changes in critically important climate feedbacks (e.g., changes in cloud cover and ocean circulation); changes in temperature characteristics (e.g., average temperatures, shifts in daytime and evening temperatures); changes in other climatic parameters (e.g., shifts in precipitation, storms); and ultimately the impact of such changes on human health and welfare (e.g., increases or decreases in agricultural productivity, human health impacts). The NRC noted, in particular, that ‘[t]he understanding of the relationships between weather/climate and human health is in its infancy and therefore the health consequences of climate change are poorly understood’ (p. 20). Substantial scientific uncertainties limit our ability to assess each of these factors and to separate out those changes resulting from natural variability from those that are directly the result of increases in anthropogenic GHGs.

“Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions will require major advances in understanding and modeling of the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and the processes that determine the sensitivity of the climate system.” 68 Fed. Reg. 52930.

I simply cannot conceive of what else the Court would like EPA to say.

Conclusion

Justice Scalia laid the axe to the roots of this poisonous tree.  Even the scientific source document relied on by the majority admits that claims of man made warming are conjecture without certain evidence.  This case does not prove CAGW despite it being repeatedly cited as though it did.

2025 The Legal Landscape Has Shifted For EPA

But much has changed in the legal landscape in recent years that will give opponents to Zeldin’s effort an uphill battle to fight. First is the changed make-up of the Supreme Court. When the Massachusetts v. EPA case was decided in 2007, the Court was evenly divided, consisting of four conservatives, four liberals, and Anthony Kennedy, a moderate who served as the Court’s “swing vote” in many major decisions. Kennedy was the deciding vote in that case, siding with the four liberal justices.

But conservatives hold an overwhelming 6-3 majority on today’s Supreme Court. While Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett have occasionally sided with the Court’s three liberal justices in a handful of decisions, there is little reason to think that would happen in a reconsideration of the Massachusetts v. EPA case. That seems especially true for Justice Roberts, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the 2007 decision.

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in the Loper Bright Industries v. EPA case could present another major challenge for Zeldin’s opponents to overcome. In a 6-3 decision in that case, the Court reversed the longstanding Chevron Deference legal doctrine.

As I wrote at the time, [w]hen established in 1984 in a unanimous, 6-0 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, Chevron instructed federal courts to defer to the judgment of legal counsel for the regulatory agencies when such regulations were challenged via litigation. Since that time, agencies focused on extending their authority well outside the original intents of the governing statutes have relied on the doctrine to ensure they will not be overturned.

The existence of the Chevron deference has worked to ensure the judiciary branch of government has also been largely paralyzed to act decisively to review and overrule elements of the Biden agenda whenever the EPA, Bureau of Land Management or other agencies impose regulations that may lie outside the scope and intent of the governing statutes. In effect, this doctrine has served as a key enabler of the massive growth of what has come to be known as the US administrative state.

The question now becomes whether the current Supreme Court with its strong conservative majority will uphold its reasoning in Massachusetts v. EPA in the absence of the Chevron Deference.

The Bottom Line For Zeldin And EPA

Opponents of the expansion of EPA air regulations by the Obama and Biden presidencies have long contended that the underpinnings for those actions – Massachusetts v. EPA and the 2009 endangerment finding – were a classic legal house of cards that would ultimately come falling down when the politics and makeup of the Supreme Court shifted.

Trump and Zeldin are betting that both factors are now in favor of these major actions at EPA. Only time, and an array of major court battles to come, will tell.  [Source: David Blackmon at Forbes]

Footnote:  

Taking the sea level rise projected by Sea Change Boston, and through the magic of CAI (Computer-Aided Imagining), we can compare to tidal gauge observations at Boston:

 

 

Minefield to Defuse EPA GHG Endangerment Finding

Posted on by Ron Clutz

When first using this image, I was noting how naive were politicians (the Brits, for example) to legislate future CO2 emissions reductions, opening themselves up to lawsuits and legal constraints on policy decisions.  Now the same advice applies to the Trump administration targeting the root of the poisonous tree of climate alarmism.  First the lay of the land from EPA Director Zeldin, in italics with my bolds:

Trump EPA Kicks Off Formal Reconsideration of Endangerment Finding with Agency Partners

EPA Press Office (press@epa.gov)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency will be kicking off a formal reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other relevant agencies. EPA also intends to reconsider all of its prior regulations and actions that rely on the Endangerment Finding.

Administrator Zeldin: “After 16 years, EPA will formally reconsider the Endangerment Finding.”  “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. We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.”

White House OMB Director Russ Vought: “EPA’s regulation of the climate affects the entire national economy—jobs, wages, and family budgets. It’s long overdue to look at the impacts on our people of the underlying Obama endangerment finding.” 

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum: “The United States produces energy smarter, cleaner, and safer than anywhere else in the world. To achieve President Trump’s vision for energy dominance, we are prioritizing innovation over regulation to attain an affordable, reliable, clean, and secure energy future for all Americans.”

Energy Secretary Chris Wright:  “The 2009 Endangerment finding has had an enormously negative impact on the lives of the American people. For more than 15 years, the U.S. government used the finding to pursue an onslaught of costly regulations – raising prices and reducing reliability and choice on everything from vehicles to electricity and more. It’s past time the United States ensures the basis for issuing environmental regulations follows the science and betters human lives.”

Transportation Secretary Duffy:  “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership and the hard work of Administrator Zeldin, we are taking another important step toward ushering in a golden age of transportation. The American people voted for a government that prioritizes affordable, safe travel and lets them choose the vehicles they drive. Today we are delivering on that promise, and this will allow the DOT to accelerate its work on new vehicle fuel economy standards that will lower car prices and no longer force Americans to purchase electric vehicles they don’t want.” 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Jeff Clark:  “Since 2009, I’ve consistently argued that the endangerment finding required a consideration of downstream costs imposed on both mobile sources like cars and stationary sources like factories. Under the enlightened leadership of President Trump and Administrator Zeldin, the time for fresh thought has finally arrived.”

In President Trump’s Day One Executive Order, “Unleashing American Energy,” he gave the EPA Administrator a 30-day deadline to submit recommendations on the legality and continuing applicability of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. After submitting these recommendations, EPA can now announce its intent to reconsider the 2009 Endangerment Finding.

When EPA made the Endangerment Finding in 2009, the agency did not consider any aspect of the regulations that would flow from it. EPA’s view then was that the Finding itself did not impose any costs, and that EPA could not consider future costs when making the Finding. EPA has subsequently relied on the Endangerment Finding as part of its justification for seven vehicle regulations with an aggregate cost of more than one trillion dollars, according to figures in EPA’s own regulatory impact analyses. The Endangerment Finding has also played a significant role in EPA’s justification of regulations of other sources beyond cars and trucks.  

Congress tasked EPA under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act with regulating new motor vehicles when the Administrator determines that emissions of an air pollutant endanger public health and welfare. But the Endangerment Finding went about this task in what appears to be a flawed and unorthodox way. Contrary to popular belief, the Endangerment Finding did not directly find that carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. cars endanger public welfare. Instead, the Finding looks at a combination of emissions of six different gases—and cars don’t even emit all six. It then creatively added multiple leaps, arguing that the combined six gases contribute some mysterious amount above zero to climate change and that climate change creates some mysterious amount of endangerment above zero to public health. These mental leaps were the only way the Obama-Biden Administration could come to its preferred conclusion, even if it did not stick to the letter of the Clean Air Act.  

The Endangerment Finding acknowledges and identifies significant uncertainties in the science and assumptions used to justify the decision. In the 16 years since EPA issued the Endangerment Finding, the world has seen major developments in innovative technologies, science, economics, and mitigation. EPA has never before asked for public comment on the implications these developments have had on the Endangerment Finding, but now it will as part of the reconsideration process it intends to undertake. Additionally, major Supreme Court decisions in the intervening years, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, West Virginia v. EPA, Michigan v. EPA, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, have provided new guidance on how the agency should interpret statutes to discern Congressional intent and ensure that its regulations follow the law.  

As part of this reconsideration process, EPA will leverage the expertise of the White House Budget Office, including the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other relevant agencies.  

It is in the best interest of the American people for EPA to ensure that any finding and regulations are based on the strongest scientific and legal foundation. The reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding and EPA’s regulations that have relied on it furthers this interest. The agency cannot prejudge the outcome of this reconsideration or of any future rulemaking. EPA will follow the Administrative Procedure Act and Clean Air Act, as applicable, in a transparent way for the betterment of the American people and the fulfillment of the rule of law.

This was announced in conjunction with a number of historic actions to advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and Power the Great American Comeback. Combined, these announcements represent the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in the history of the United States. The overhaul of the Endangerment Finding along with other massive rules represents the death of the Green New Scam and drives a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion. While accomplishing EPA’s core mission of protecting the environment, the agency is committed to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to unleash American energy, lower costs for Americans, revitalize the American auto industry, restore the rule of law, and give power back to states to make their own decisions.

Objections from the usual suspects

“This decision ignores science and the law,” David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “Abdicating EPA’s clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.”

Vickie Patton, the Environmental Defense Fund’s general counsel, said any move to undo the finding “would be reckless, unlawful, and ignore EPA’s fundamental responsibility to protect Americans from destructive climate pollution. We will vigorously oppose it.”

“They don’t have a winning hand. Having the power to do this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not what they’re doing makes sense on the merits,” said Joseph Goffman, who ran EPA’s air office during the Biden administration. “They’ve got nothing on the merits.”

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania dismissed the EPA’s action as “just the latest form of Republican climate denial. They can no longer deny climate change is happening, so instead they’re pretending it’s not a threat, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is, perhaps, the greatest threat that we face today.”

The Pathways and the Risks

Shuting Pomerleau gives insight into activists worries and the possibilities:  Is EPA’s Endangerment Finding at Risk?

If EPA’s endangerment finding is rescinded, it may not have any material impact on the agency’s legal basis for issuing future climate regulations on GHG emissions, since the IRA amended the CAA to grant explicit authority to the agency. Nevertheless, repealing the endangerment finding would likely create chaos and uncertainty for U.S. climate policy.

First, rescinding the endangerment finding would make it much easier for the Trump Administration to repeal the existing EPA GHG emissions regulations because the original legal basis for this authority would no longer exist. Under the Obama and Biden Administrations, EPA has issued several sector-based GHG emissions regulations using the endangerment finding as a legal basis.

Second, repealing the endangerment finding would immediately subject EPA to legal challenges that could last years. Before the dispute could be adjudicated by the courts, there would be considerable confusion and uncertainty over compliance with the existing regulations. This would negatively impact the regulatory environment for businesses, as they need durable and consistent policies to make long-term investment decisions.

From the perspective of policymaking, rescinding EPA’s endangerment finding puts a big question mark on the outlook of U.S. climate policies. Currently, at the federal level, the United States uses a patchwork of policies to mitigate GHG emissions, such as handing out massive clean energy tax subsidies under the IRA and relying on command-and-control EPA regulations. The IRA energy tax provisions will likely be subject to at least partial repeal in an upcoming 2025 reconciliation bill. Even if a future administration seeks to regulate GHG emissions via EPA rulemaking, it would take a long time, and generally such regulations are costly, inflexible, and vulnerable to legal challenges.

What to Expect Next

EPA to Accept Nominations for Science Boards

EPA Press Office (press@epa.gov)

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that a notice will be published in the Federal Register seeking nominations for the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Nominations will be accepted for 30 days following publication of the Federal Register notice.

“Reconstituting the Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee are critical to ensuring that the agency receives scientific advice consistent with its legal obligations to advance our core mission of protecting human health and the environment,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin. “I look forward to receiving nominations to build an independent group of advisors to aid the agency’s rulemaking.” 

In January, EPA announced its decision to reset these federal advisory committees
to reverse the politicization of SAB and CASAC under the Biden-Harris Administration.

 

 

 

 

On Energy, Carney the Wrong Man at the Worst Time

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Geoff Russ explains at his National Post article When it comes to energy, Carney is the wrong man at the worst time.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The world is moving on from global climate goals to more pressing matters

Even if only for a matter of weeks, Mark Carney is likely to become prime minister of Canada when this Liberal leadership race concludes. His vision for the country is rife with climate strategies and schemes belonging to a world most can remember, but that no longer exists.

The world has moved on. International accords such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, cooperation between financial institutions on climate goals, and more carbon pricing are no longer priorities for Canada in 2025. Canada is not a superpower, no serious person would say differently, and we have to swim in the global current of change.

Trudeau was not prepared for Trump’s bargaining style.

This doesn’t mean bowing to the whims of an unpredictable strongman, but it does require recognizing that the Obama world of liberal internationalism and high-minded ideals is gone. Whatever chance it had of enduring died with Joe Biden’s presidency.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had already scrambled world energy supply lines, and Trump’s return to the White House, along with the rise of AI technology, have changed everything.

AI in particular has been one of the biggest shifts since Carney’s days as a central banker. The astonishing and rapid growth of AI has resulted in eye-popping demands for energy, with data centres set to consume more electricity than entire cities.

Grids will be pushed to their limits. This spells danger for Canadian provinces like British Columbia, whose hydroelectricity regime can no longer reliably supply its economy and population. For consecutive years now, BC Hydro has been forced to import energy from Alberta and the U.S., the latter of which may soon be subject to counter-tariffs and other heightened costs.

Carney’s ideas about the climate and the so-called “energy transition” are at odds with his promises to grow the use of AI in the public service and future economy. Canada will have to build many data centres to keep up with other G7 countries, but where will their energy come from?

Nuclear energy is the most commonly cited solution, and several American big-tech giants have made plans to use small modular reactors (SMRs) to power the data centres. Once built, nuclear power provides an abundance of cheap, low-emitting, and reliable energy.

B.C. has standing laws that prohibit the building of nuclear generators, and the provincial NDP government unambiguously rejected the possibility of changing that. In the meantime, wind and solar will not cut it, both being subject to weather patterns that make them unreliable and insufficient.

The best alternative is natural gas, 1,368 trillion cubic feet of which sits beneath the feet of Canadians and can serve as an abundant source of power for the modern economy. Unfortunately, Carney’s ideas about carbon pricing would fall directly on the producers, making it far more expensive while deterring investment.

Trump is an unabashed economic nationalist, and Canada needs
to make itself competitive and attractive to
both energy and technological investment.

Canadian natural gas is more important than ever, both for the country and the world. After Russia invaded Ukraine, EU countries had to rapidly seek new, stable suppliers of energy to replace the massive Russian gas imports that supplied much of the EU.

The war revealed how energy security amongst friends and allies was just as important as emissions reductions, if not more so. Canada’s first opportunity was squandered when the Liberal government rebuffed European calls for Canadian LNG as having “no business case”.

Germany has been forced to turn back to coal as a power source as energy bills surge, driving German automobile manufacturers to close down some of their plants. Canadian LNG exports need to be prioritized for domestic use and exports abroad, and insisting on slapping punitive carbon taxes on the industry is against Canada’s interests.

Another challenge to Canada’s economic future is the recently proposed, $44 billion USD LNG project in Alaska. Envisioned as a joint US-Japanese, the project would establish Alaska as the leading LNG exporter to Japan, one of the world’s largest importers of natural gas.

If completed, the Alaska LNG project would be a direct threat to BC’s natural gas industry. One of the major projects, Cedar LNG in Kitimat, is set to come online in 2028, followed by two more in Squamish and near Prince Rupert. B.C. has a good head start, but the US and Japan plowing ahead with $44 billion LNG deals should be a wakeup call to Ottawa.

An LNG export deal with Japan of similar value should be completed while American LNG still has to pass through the Panama Canal to get to Japan, not after it starts being shipped from Alaska. Taxing natural gas producers will slow potential projects down and make Canada less competitive.

Canada cannot diversify its trading partners if the U.S. is allowed to overtake our industries and slowing it down with carbon taxes and Canada’s onerous regulatory regime in the name of outdated climate movements is a gift to President Trump.

Like it or not, major international initiatives live or die
depending on American involvement. This was true of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and it is true of NATO.

Mark Carney’s own attempts to forge agreements such as the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which has been abandoned by major American and Canadian banks and financial institutions, have collapsed. Canada needs to prioritize building up our own internal energy infrastructure and making it as competitive and attractive to investors as possible.

This is the age of nationalism, and we should recognize the opportunities it will bring to Canada. If Carney’s pledge to make Canadians “masters of our own house” means trying to captain toothless climate accords and drive away investment, then he should not be the head of our house.

Getting Climate Crisis Monkey Off Public Health Services

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Advances in medical science and public health have  benefited billions of people with longer and higher quality lives.  Yet this crucial social asset has joined the list of those fields corrupted by the dash for climate cash. Increasingly, medical talent and resources are diverted into inventing bogeymen and studying imaginary public health crises.

Thus it is welcome news that confirmed Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) RFK Jr. has stopped funding of climate medicine at National Institutes of Health (NIH). Mother Jones reported its disapproval RFK Jr., Onetime Environmentalist, Kills NIH Climate Change Programs.
Subtitled: He pulled HHS support from projects that aim to protect Americans’ health.  fight climate change. (my correction of MJ subtitle).

On February 14 of this year, his second day as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, he ended HHS funding for climate change and health programs at the National Institutes of Health, a move that will likely terminate this work.

That day, Ken Callahan, a senior adviser for policy and implementation in the Immediate Office of the Secretary for HHS, sent an email to Dr. Matthew Memoli, the acting director of NIH, noting that HHS would no longer support three programs run by the agency:  the Climate Change and Health Initiative, the Climate Change and Health Research Coordinating Center, and the Climate and Health Scholars Program.

In the email, a copy of which was obtained by Mother Jones, Callahan cited Executive Order 14154, titled “Unleashing American Energy,” which President Donald Trump signed on his first day in office last month to revoke executive orders President Joe Biden had previously issued to implement actions to address climate change.

As Richard Lindzen predicted, everyone wants on the climate bandwagon, because that is where the money is. Medical scientists have pushed for their share of the pie, as evidenced by the Met office gathering on Assessing the Global Impacts of Climate and Extreme Weather on Health and Well-Being (following Paris COP). Not coincidentally, the 2nd Global Conference on Health and Climate was held July 7-8, 2016 in Paris. Following that the American Public Health Association declared: 2017 is the Year of Climate Change and Health.

NIH: Why Climate Change Is a Health Threat

The NIH Climate Change and Health Initiative Strategic Framework claims:

For some time, international scientific consensus has been that climate change poses an existential threat to human beings. A report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nation’s body for assessing the science related to climate change, concluded in a recent report: “Any increase in global warming is projected to affect human health, with primarily negative consequences (high confidence).” The report further concludes that, “Compared to current conditions, 1.5°C of global warming would nonetheless pose heightened risks to eradicating poverty, reducing inequalities, and ensuring human and ecosystem well-being (medium evidence, high agreement)

and they conclude:

A mounting number of assessments and reports provide undeniable evidence that climate change is resulting in increasingly profound changes to the global environment with direct and indirect consequences for human health and well-being. Closely intertwined with this threat are the more tangible and proximal risks of natural disasters, a global pandemic, societal unrest, and the ever-familiar menaces of poverty and inequity. The need for NIH to lead this science-based initiative, in partnership with communities throughout the world, is now warranted and vitally necessary to address the imminent threat that climate change poses to our health, humanity, and our planet.

Comment: 

There are numerous posts here why the IPCC alarmist narrative is speculative and exaggerated, for example:

Climatists Make Their Case by Omitting Facts

Thus it is high time to uncouple the globalist push to fuse health care with CO2 hysteria.

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Background:

Climate Health Crisis Meme Goes Viral

 

 

 

 

 

Trump: Homeland Security Not in Climate Change Business

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Steve Milloy reported on X:  President Trump deports “climate change” from the Department of Homeland Security: “Top officials at the US Department of Homeland Security received a memo on Friday ordering an immediate stop to work connected to climate change and the elimination of climate-related terms across the agency. The memo instructs senior office heads to “eliminate all climate change activities and the use of climate change terminology in DHS policies and programs, to the maximum extent permitted by the law,” according to the document seen by Bloomberg News. The changes are meant to bring “alignment” with Trump’s executive orders that reverse multiple climate-related orders by former President Joe Biden, it said.”

Comment:

A good place to start is the DHS webpage Climate Literacy at DHS which was updated January 27, 2025, probably only adding a disclaimer “In an effort to keep DHS.gov current, the archive contains outdated information that may not reflect current policy or programs.”

Table of Contents

Climate Science Overview

The DHS Mission and Climate Change

Climate Change Adaptation, Mitigation, and Resilience

Climate Security

Climate Change and Fragility

Further Resources

Further Resources Include:

DHS Resources

Component Resources

External Resources

Climate Tools

Conclusion

DHS still thinks it’s very much in the “Climate Change Business” and rooting it out will be an extensive process met with unwelcome resistance.

SEC Chair Revokes Illegal Climate Disclosure Rule

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Jon McGowan reports at Forbes Acting SEC Chair Says Climate-Related Disclosure Rule Is Illegal.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Background

Following the Paris Agreement in 2015, a series of global initiatives were pursued to reduce the impacts of climate change and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero” by 2050. The goal included a significant reduction in GHG emissions, but also utilized “offsets” that, through technology and protection of natural resources, would result in overall emissions being at a net of zero. This resulted in a carbon credit market that allowed high GHG emitting countries and businesses to purchase credits from underdeveloped countries that produce little emissions.

On the financial side, a multi-prong approach was used to influence and regulate businesses. Large investment firms, like BlackRock, used their influence to drive ESG and sustainability. By 2021, it was standard practice for businesses to release annual ESG and sustainability reports. However, there was no standardization of the practice. Claims were unregulated and content was unclear. As a result, reports were focused on what the business thought mattered to investors and were little more than marketing pieces.

This became problematic in the highly regulated financial industry. Funds that claim to be ESG, green, climate friendly, or sustainable must back up those claims with data. As a result of demand and Paris Agreement based initiatives, international regulators began drafting standards for reporting, marketing, and investments relating to climate change and other green initiatives.

In 2021, the International Sustainability Standards Board drafted the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation’s Sustainability Disclosure Standards. IFRS is an independent, nonprofit organization that develops financial reporting standards, including international accounting standards. IFRS is not used in the U.S., who uses generally accepted accounting principles, also known as GAAP, but is used in 132 jurisdictions. The IFRS Standards were adopted in June 2023 as the global standard for sustainability and climate change reporting, including greenhouse gas emissions.

The US Securities Exchange Commission Story Regarding ESG

In the U.S., the SEC proposed the development of climate-related reporting standards in March 2022. The final rule, adopted on March 6, 2024, required large publicly traded companies to disclose climate action, GHG emissions, and the financial impacts of severe weather events. The Climate-Related Disclosure Rule was initially set to go into effect in 2026. However, it was immediately met with legal challenges and the SEC delayed implementation indefinitely while the cases worked through the judicial process. Now it appears the delay will become permanent.

Rough Seas for Captains of Industry

Under the leadership of Gary Gensler, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission saw a wave of regulatory and enforcement actions relating to environmental, social, and governance; sustainability; and climate change. It was clear that his exit, effective the day President Trump took office, would significantly alter the SEC’s approach to those topics.

On February 11, acting SEC Chair Uyeda, a Biden appointee, effectively ended the Climate-Related Disclosure Rule. In the statement, Uyeda said,

“The Rule is deeply flawed and could inflict significant harm on the capital markets and our economy.”

“Both Commissioner Peirce and I voted against the Rule’s adoption. Commissioner Peirce said that then-existing disclosure rules were sufficient and that the ‘[R]ule’s anticipated benefits do not outweigh the costs.’ She argued that ‘only a mandate from Congress should put us in the business of facilitating the disclosure of information not clearly related to financial returns.’ I stated that the Commission was ‘without statutory authority or expertise’ to address climate change issues and that ’this [R]ule is climate regulation promulgated under the Commission’s seal.’”

“The Commission’s briefs previously submitted in the cases consolidated in the Eighth Circuit do not reflect my views… I also question whether the agency followed the proper procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act to adopt the Rule.”

As a result, Acting Chair Uyeda has asked the court for a delay in the proceedings while the SEC takes action to rollback the Climate-Related Disclosure Rule. As a result, climate reporting at the national level is effectively dead. The focus now turns to the states and international actions.

 

US Energy Status Quo and Outlook–Sec. Chris Wright

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Three days after he was confirmed as US Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright was interviewed on CNBC Squawk Box by Brian Sullivan.  The video clip above and one at the end provide his view of the way forward for US energy.  For those who prefer to read, I provide a transcript in italics from the closed captions, lightly edited with my bolds and some added images.  Brian refers to interviewer Brian Sullivan and Chris to Secretary Wright.

Brian: Let’s get to the topical issues, price of oil. The president says drill, baby, drill. You’re a guy that ran a fracking company. How do we balance out ringing down the price of gasoline, adding to US production, but yet not destroying the oil and gas investments as well? The CNBC audience talks about and looks at that every day.

Chris: Yeah, of course it’s a business and prices are dictated by supply and demand. But we’ve had four years of an administration that’s done everything it could to raise the cost to produce a barrel of oil. “We’re not sure if you can get a permit to drill here” or “It’s going to take 18 months. You’ve got uncertainty. You’ve got to build pipelines or gathering lines to move that product to market. “Well, we’re not sure if you can do that. You’ve got to do another study, or another this or that.” So when you add to costs of course you hurt the economics.

Now we’re going to have a more efficient operating environment. I think we’re going to see some efficiencies from scale, some efficiencies from certainty and from more credible Capital Markets. We’ve tried to starve the oil and gas industry globally, somehow thinking that’s going to help climate change. There’s been a lot of nonsense. And I think the agenda of this administration, this president, is to bring back common sense.

Brian: Can we have lower oil and gas prices and still have stocks that are not much lower than they are right now?

Chris: Oh, absolutely. Look, if you lower the cost of operations, there’s a lot of fat in the cost of operations. If you lower the cost of operations that’s going to flow through to lower prices but not necessarily lower profits.

Rough Seas for Captains of Industry

Brian: And that margin you think can remain steady and thus hold up because you were the CEO of a publicly traded company and on the board of another publicly traded company, which you have now left.

Chris:  Absolutely. And look, it’s capitalism and business is driven by profit motives that have driven innovation, that have driven efficiency and driven improvements in our system. And that’s exactly what we want going forward in nuclear and natural gas and oil and geothermal, whatever it is.

Brian: Just before this interview we were talking about tariffs and the impact. They were showing health and beauty stocks down 25%. We know there’s a pause on the potential Canada tariffs, there’s 4.4 million barrels a day we bring in from Canada on average. Much of that goes to where you’re from, the Rocky Mountains, the Denver area, the upper Midwest. What is your view on potential 10% tariffs? If it does happen, what is going to happen to US oil and gasoline prices?

Chris: Well, look. Obviously the Canadian energy system is built and integrated with the United States energy system. Those pipelines come to US refineries that are tuned to refine that heavier, more viscous crude that Canada produces. I don’t think we’re going to see that change. As the president has said, this is a drug war. This is about concerns and security at our border. This is to get everyone’s attention and focus on how can we reduce criminals and fentanyl and drugs that are a threat to American security coming in our borders. I think things are moving in a productive direction.

Brian: It doesn’t sound like you think the tariffs would ultimately occur.

Chris: I don’t know what the future will bring there, but I know we’ve got very productive dialogues right now.

Brian: I’m sure you have many friends in Canada, as do I. And you know, they’re angry about this. They said, “Well, you know what? If they want to tariff our oil, let’s just ship it to Vancouver and we’re going to sell it overseas. I would call that the nuclear option. Do you see anything like that occurring if the tariffs were to occur, Mr. Secretary?

Chris: It’s hard to build new pipeline capacity. Canada does have a West Coast pipeline, which is running today and exporting oil to Asia. But that’s 10% or less of Canadian oil production. But look, this president is aggressive. He doesn’t like the status quo. He wants to change things and improve things. We had a lot of noise and sound and fury last time he was president about tariffs and inflation. Inflation averaged less than 2% in the four years he was president.

His agenda is to lower prices and better American lives, and
I don’t see any reason to believe think that’s not going to happen.

Brian: You mentioned climate a couple of minutes ago. Coming into this Administration, one of the big question marks is: What will happen to the loans and the grants and the IRA Inflation Reduction Act monies that may be already committed to wind, to solar. This matters to CNBC’s audience. In the stock market, a lot of these companies have seen their share price decline by a lot. What is your view on the Inflation Reduction Act and wind and solar projects, and the monies that are required to produce them?

Chris: So look, I’m in this chair three days now. One of the things we are doing is looking at all the projects that are out there. Where are the commitments? Where are the uncommitted funds? What’s the best use to grow the supply of affordable, reliable, secure American energy? Tremendous opportunities there. So there’s upside here as well.

But one thing I will say, Brian, we will not follow the German model. And I think the last administration wanted to go down that road. Germany spent a half a trillion dollars, made their electricity 2 to 3 times more expensive, and they produce 20% less electricity today than they did 15 years ago. We’re not going to go down that road.

We want affordable, reliable, secure energy and
reindustrialization of America, not De-industrialization of America.

Brian: Well, that’s something I’ve obviously personally reported on many times for CNBC. Been over there, seen what’s happened. So just to be clear, because let’s be honest, a lot of Wall Street makes a lot of money investing in wind and solar and even nuclear. You were on the board of a nuclear company. So final question. Should we say that that it’s possible big wind and solar projects are still going to be okay, that they’re not going to be starved of Funds under this administration? What’s the what’s the money situation regarding some of these renewable wind and solar and nuclear type energy programs?

Chris: Look, I think you’re going to see continued development in the United States of all of these energy sources. But obviously, a flow of funds from this administration is all going to be about not what the energy technology is, but will it increase the supply of affordable, reliable, secure energy?

Will it better the lives of American consumers and
encourage businesses to build things in America?

Brian: Well, finally, on building things. The first new nuclear plant in the United States just opened up last year in Georgia, took about 20 plus years to build way over budget. You’re a nuclear guy. You were on the board of Anglo until you resigned that seat. What is the future of nuclear in the United States? Some say it’s the future. Others say way too doggone expensive up front, doesn’t pay off.

Chris: I think the future is very bright, very bright. It’s an energy dense technology that gives reliable energy at all times, with a small amount of land and a small amount of materials. Do we need innovation? Do we need some government out of the way to make it work economically? Absolutely. But that’s what America is about.

Brian: Exclusive interview with the new Secretary of Energy on Day three, Christopher Wright. Thank you very much for your time here.

 

EPA Priorities Announced

Posted on by Ron Clutz

During Trump 1.0 the appointed EPA Director summarized the false dichotomy long plaguing the agency: “If you are for the Environment, you must be against Development; and if you are for Development, you must be against the Environment.” In reality, a balance must be struck, and a new administration intends to find it.  There has been much gnashing of teeth in the legacy media over this month’s dismissal of scientists from EPA advisory boards, without mentioning the same housecleaning happened in 2021 when Biden regime took over.  Now we have an official announcement about the new EPA direction and priorities.  Text in italics with my bolds and added images.

WASHINGTON – On February 4, 2025, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency’s Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, to achieve the agency’s mission while energizing the greatness of the American economy. This plan outlines the agency’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Zeldin. The newly announced Powering the Great American Comeback initiative consists of five pillars that will guide the EPA’s work over the first 100 days and beyond:

Pillar 1: Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American

“Every American should have access to clean air, land, and water. I will ensure the EPA is fulfilling its mission to protect human health and the environment. In his first term, President Trump advanced conservation, reduced toxic emissions in the air, and cleaned up hazardous sites, while fostering economic growth for families across the country. We remain committed to these priorities in this administration, as well as ensuring emergency response efforts are helping Americans get back on their feet in the quickest and safest way possible. We will do so while remaining good stewards of tax dollars and ensuring that every penny spent is going towards advancing this mission,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 2: Restore American Energy Dominance

“Pursuing energy independence and energy dominance will cut energy costs for everyday Americans who are simply trying to heat their homes and put gas in their cars. This will also allow our nation to stop relying on energy sources from adversaries, while lowering costs for hardworking middle-income families, farmers, and small business owners. I look forward to working with the greatest minds driving American innovation, to ensure we are producing and developing the cleanest energy on the planet,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 3: Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership

“Any business that wants to invest in America should be able to do so without having to face years-long, uncertain, and costly permitting processes that deter them from doing business in our country in the first place. It will be important for the EPA to work with our partners at the state and federal levels to ensure projects are being approved and companies can invest billions of dollars into our nation. Streamlining these processes, while partnering with businesses to follow the necessary steps to safeguard our environment, will incentivize investment into our economy and create American jobs,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 4: Make the United States the Artificial Intelligence Capital of the World

“As we rapidly advance into this new age of AI, it is important that the United States lead the world in this field. Those looking to invest in and develop AI should be able to do so in the U.S., while we work to ensure data centers and related facilities can be powered and operated in a clean manner with American-made energy. Under President Trump’s leadership, I have no doubt that we will become the AI capital of the world,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 5: Protecting and Bringing Back American Auto Jobs

“Our American auto industry is hurting because of the burdensome policies of the past.

Under President Trump, we will bring back American auto jobs and invest in domestic manufacturing to revitalize a quintessential American industry. We will partner with leaders to streamline and develop smart regulations that will allow for American workers to lead the great comeback of the auto industry,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Footnote:

The Trump Administration not only cut “environmental justice” programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, they put nearly 200 staffers on leave.

According to reports, the staffers were called into a meeting on Thursday afternoon where they were informed that they were being placed on leave.

“Effective immediately, you are being placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits. This administrative leave is not being done for any disciplinary purpose,” the email stated, according to Politico.

“Career staff made determinations on which Office of Environmental Justice employees had statutory duties or core mission functions,” EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in a statement. “As such, 168 staffers were placed on administrative leave as their function did not relate to the agency’s statutory duties or grant work. EPA is in the process of evaluating new structure and organization to ensure we are meeting our mission of protecting human health and the environment for all Americans.” Source.

Carnage: Trump Cuts ‘Environmental Justice’ Programs, Puts Nearly 200 EPA Staffers on Leave

It’s Better to be Outside Paris Accord

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Chris Johnson writes at Real Clear Energy to explain Trump’s Withdrawal From the Paris Agreement Won’t Hurt the Climate.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Cue the leftwing meltdown. Though everyone knew the withdrawal was coming, the left and the “international community” are still decrying America’s alleged abdication of leadership on climate.
But toothless agreements window dressed with international
summits and photo ops are not the same as leadership.
The truth is America has led the world in reducing emissions for years not because of the Paris Agreement, but because innovation and the free market facilitate the deployment of cheaper and cleaner energy.  Let’s review the record.
In recent decades, America has achieved unprecedented — and unexpected — energy production thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling. Since the early 2000s when these twin technologies began to be deployed much more expansively, U.S. natural gas production has more than doubled. By 2016, hydraulically fractured gas wells accessed through horizontal drilling accounted for nearly 70% of all oil and natural gas wells.
While the left may clutch its pearls at the increased production of a fossil fuel like natural gas, this clean energy source has been a main driver of U.S. emissions reductions. Over the past 15 years when America has massively increased natural gas output, the U.S. reduced carbon emissions more than any other country. We can see this year by year.
For example, from 2022 to 2023, America offset dirtier coal energy generation with natural gas. As coal declined by 121.9 terawatt hours of electric generation over that time, natural gas increased by 118.9 terawatt hours. At the same time, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions declined 1.9%. Notably, 80% of the U.S. carbon emissions reductions were driven by the electric power sector — precisely where natural gas has an outsized impact.
Notice what didn’t cause those emissions reductions? The Paris Agreement.
The American energy sector — powered by innovation and good-old-fashioned free market economics — has been driving down carbon emissions cheaply and effectively before the Paris Agreement was a twinkle in climate activists’ eyes. And it will continue to reduce carbon emissions long after President Trump’s decision to withdraw.
The Paris Agreement is far from the panacea some activists claim it is.
It isn’t even a particularly effective tool to
rally nations toward greater climate success.
In the middle of the allegedly climate-conscious Biden administration, none of the world’s biggest emitters — America included — had reduced their emissions in accordance with the Paris goals. Apparently, the $1 trillion regulatory and subsidy regime erected by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act had little bang for the buck.
What Agreement supporters forget is that no number of high-profile international accords can make command-control tactics work — or instill other nations with the ambition to fulfill their empty promises.

Yes, those are trillions of dollars they are projecting to spend.

The Paris Agreement is the definition of bureaucratic failure, conflating meetings, busyness, and lofty goals as success. Its only achievement is to make climate ideologues and green jetsetters feel good about themselves as they fly to international conferences.
It’s no wonder President Trump withdrew. Talk is cheap. What matters is success. On that metric, the Trump administration is set to actually achieve what Paris Agreement signatories only write on paper.
Trump entered office promising to deregulate the fossil fuel industry, increase permitting for natural gas extraction, approve the construction of energy facilities like natural gas export terminals, and re-establish American energy dominance.
By leaning into America’s carbon advantage and exporting clean American energy abroad, he will boost the U.S. economy, supplant dirty energy from nations like Russia and Venezuela with a clean American alternative, and lower emissions both at home and abroad, all without the jaw-dropping price tag of the failed Biden-era green agenda. We should combine these steps with efforts to actually hold the biggest polluters accountable (which are being discussed by President Trump’s cabinet). This approach would be the antithesis of the Paris Accords’ America-last strategy.
Of course, some are urging President Trump to go further and not just withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but also back out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This may seem like an easy choice, seeing as the UNFCCC, like so many UN bodies, acts contrary to American interests. But that’s exactly why America must remain in the UNFCCC.
Climate treaties will be formed whether or not the U.S. is involved, and the UNFCCC will continue to operate as a forum for those negotiations. Staying in the UNFCCC costs America nothing while allowing Trump and his appointees to keep a seat at the table, hold the UN accountable, and counter any deal that would put America at a disadvantage. While the UNFCCC can be harmful, it’s only the Paris Agreement that’s impotent.
The breathless alarm over the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is overwrought. When President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord during his first administration, America went on to cut carbon emissions to the lowest level in 25 years. Re-embracing the power of natural gas in his second term, he’ll do it again.
So instead of the UN and international climate activists judging the U.S., we should remind everyone that if you want to put climate first, you should actually put America first.
Chris Johnson is a GOP strategist who organizes the next generation of conservative leaders. He also serves as a senior advisor to the National Federation of College Republicans, focusing on energy issues.

 

No, Grist, MSN, et al: CO2 Is Not Making Oceans Boil

Posted on by Ron Clutz

 

The Climate Crisis media network is announcing a new claim that rising CO2 is causing recent ocean warming, proving it’s dangerous and must be curtailed.  Examples in the last few days include these:

Finally, an answer to why Earth’s oceans have been on a record hot streak Grist

Ocean warming 4 times faster than in 1980s — and likely to accelerate in coming decades MSN

News spotlight: Fossil fuels behind extreme ocean temperatures, study says. Conservation International

Ocean temperature rise accelerating as greenhouse gas levels keep rising UK Natural History Museum

The surface of our oceans is now warming four times faster than it was in the late 1980s The Independent UK

Oceans Are Warming Four Times Faster as Earth Traps More Energy Bloomberg Law News

All this hype deriving from one study,
and ignoring the facts falsifying that narrative.

Fact:  Historically, ocean natural oscillations drive observed global warming.

The long record of previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.

The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby.  These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event.  The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4.  This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C.  Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C.  Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.

Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate.  On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles.

Fact: Recent rise in SST was driven by ENSO and N. Atlantic Anomalies.

And now in 2024 we have seen an amazing episode with a temperature spike driven by ocean warming in all regions, along with rising NH land temperatures, now dropping below its peak.

The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST4 starting in 2015 through December 2024.  A global cooling pattern is seen clearly in the Tropics since its peak in 2016, joined by NH and SH cycling downward since 2016, followed by rising temperatures in 2023 and 2024.

To enlarge, open image in new tab.

Note that in 2015-2016 the Tropics and SH peaked in between two summer NH spikes.  That pattern repeated in 2019-2020 with a lesser Tropics peak and SH bump, but with higher NH spikes. By end of 2020, cooler SSTs in all regions took the Global anomaly well below the mean for this period.  A small warming was driven by NH summer peaks in 2021-22, but offset by cooling in SH and the tropics, By January 2023 the global anomaly was again below the mean.

Now in 2023-24 came an event resembling 2015-16 with a Tropical spike and two NH spikes alongside, all higher than 2015-16. There was also a coinciding rise in SH, and the Global anomaly was pulled up to 1.1°C last year, ~0.3° higher than the 2015 peak.  Then NH started down autumn 2023, followed by Tropics and SH descending 2024 to the present. After 10 months of cooling in SH and the Tropics, the Global anomaly came back down, led by NH cooling the last 4 months from its peak in August. It’s now about 0.1C higher than the average for this period. Note that the Tropical anomaly has cooled from 1.29C in 2024/01 to 0.66C as of 2024/12.

Fact: Empirical measurements show ocean warms the air, not the other way around.

One can read convoluted explanations about how rising CO2 in the atmosphere can cause land surface heating which is then transported over the ocean and causes higher SST. But the interface between ocean and air is well described and measured. Not surprisingly it is the warmer ocean water sending heat into the atmosphere, and not the other way around.

The graph displays measures of heat flux in the sub-tropics during a 21-day period in November. Shortwave solar energy shown above in green labeled radiative is stored in the upper 200 meters of the ocean. The upper panel shows the rise in SST (Sea Surface Temperature) due to net incoming energy. The yellow shows latent heat cooling the ocean, (lowering SST) and transferring heat upward, driving convection. [From An Investigation of Turbulent Heat Exchange in the Subtropics by James B. Edson]

As we see in the graphs ocean circulations change sea surface temperatures which then cause global land and sea temperatures to change. Thus, oceans make climate by making temperature changes.

Fact: On all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia, temperature changes first and CO2 changes follow.

Previously I have demonstrated that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels follow changes in Global Mean Temperatures (GMT) as shown by satellite measurements from University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). That background post is included in the posting referenced later below.

My curiosity was piqued by the remarkable GMT spike starting in January 2023 and rising to a peak in April 2024, and then declining afterward.  I also became aware that UAH has recalibrated their dataset due to a satellite drift that can no longer be corrected. The values since 2020 have shifted slightly in version 6.1, as shown in my recent report  Ocean Leads Cooling UAH December 2024.

I tested the premise that temperature changes are predictive of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  The chart above shows the two monthly datasets: CO2 levels in blue reported at Mauna Loa, and Global temperature anomalies in purple reported by UAHv6.1, both through December 2024. Would such a sharp increase in temperature be reflected in rising CO2 levels, according to the successful mathematical forecasting model? Would CO2 levels decline as temperatures dropped following the peak?

The answer is yes: that temperature spike resulted
in a corresponding CO2 spike as expected.
And lower CO2 levels followed the temperature decline.

Above are UAH temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year.

Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for UAH are anomalies now referenced to the 1991-2020 period. CO2 differentials are calculated for the present month by subtracting the value for the same month in the previous year (for example December 2024 minus December 2023).  Temp anomalies are calculated by comparing the present month with the baseline month. Note the recent CO2 upward spike and drop following the temperature spike and drop.

Summary

Changes in CO2 follow changes in global temperatures on all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia. Since CO2 is the lagging variable, it cannot logically be the cause of temperature, the leading variable. It is folly to imagine that by reducing human emissions of CO2, we can change global temperatures, which are obviously driven by other factors.

12/2024 Update–As Temperature Changes, CO2 Follows