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.
330
It’s time to de-mob the blob. Put it out to pasture.
170
Are you trying to kill the pasture?
91
It’s fun watching the climate doomsday religion go down in flames.
120
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.
180
“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
100
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?
170
“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
100
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”.
190
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.
00
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.
200
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.
90
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.
30
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..
00
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,
140
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
140
well I won’t be living in Oz in 2090, so I guess they are partly right.
00
How much did the Natural Resources Defense Council receive annually from USAID?
100
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 :).
220
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.
140
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?
120
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 .
50
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.
19
Bzzzt!
That sounds like “consensus science”.
That’s not how science is done. It’s not even science.
30
– that’s a newey. Sounds like it’s moved on from climate catastrophe, apocalypse etc. Gotta keep that gravy train puffing along.
20
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.
20
“Endangerment Finding” towards CO2 is clearly a danger. Overturning this legislation will probably be very difficult and time consuming but I live in hope!
70
If it was truly dangerous, you’d be stopped from producing it.
And we know what that means. Mandates…..
00
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.
50
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.!!!!
40
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.
40
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 meteorologists. 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.
00
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.
00
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
00
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.
00