EPA Moves To Repeal Finding That Allows Climate Regulation (apnews.com) 147
skam240 writes: President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule would rescind a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
The "endangerment finding" is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.
The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule would rescind a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
The "endangerment finding" is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.
What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Funny)
The laws of thermodynamics? I could see how those might be inconventient too.
Maybe they can repeal gravity? I've always wanted to be able to fly.
Re: What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but gravity's only a _Theory_...
Re: What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't let the boot of the corporate deceiver keep you down! Follow me my friends!
Re: What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll be writing the next update from the hospital, but watch out, secure your surroundings before you walk off your balcony or they will get you! Big Gravity is strong!
Re: What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Funny)
Big Gravity is strong!
It's almost like they are a force of nature!
Re: (Score:2)
And it is the weakest force. Wait until you meet the others!
Re: (Score:2)
Share the sig?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: What will they repeal next? (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously! Just look up in the sky, you see clouds floating around, they don't come crashing down to Earth! Or those little bits of dust that are caught in a sunbeam, how do they stay up if gravity is pulling everything down, hmmmmm?
Gravity is just a scam invented by airlines you make you think you need to buy tickets instead of flapping your arms like birds do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: What will they repeal next? (Score:2)
Ah, but gravity's only a _Theory_...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One law I would like to see repealed next is Murphy's law! seriously!
Oh, that's a good one. Murphy's law bites us in the ass way too often.
Re: (Score:3)
I see that neither the Interwebs nor /. have a working "stupidity filter".
It's interesting that the Republicans have found yet another way to fuck the next generation, because the epstein/trump combo just wasn't enough, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation, please. Explain to us, with evidence NOT FROM FAUX NOISE OR TIKTOK OR NEWSMAXX who on the left is paying, as opposed to the far over $200B annual income of the US petrochemical industry.
The Republican Parties version of ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republican Parties version of leave no man behind.
If we're going to die we're going to take EVERYONE with us.
Re: The Republican Parties version of ... (Score:5, Informative)
You joke, but there is a certain small faction that want to see the end of days and Rapture occur in their own lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
And then, there are the folks with the bumper stickers that say, "In case of rapture, can I have your car?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The Republican Parties version of ... (Score:4, Insightful)
A small number of people with an outsized amount of influence over my country's government.
Re: (Score:3)
Dear Lord, may the love of Jesus Christ damn these books and those who read them to Hell for all Eternity. Please grant us this most humble wish that they burn and burn and burn.
Oh, and Dear Lord, errrmmm...as you can see (points to the pews) the Faithful who don't read Harry Potter are awaiting the Rapture. We be ready to go on moments notice.
Dear Lord Responds: Say Greg Lock, it is good to hear from you. How're they hanging? (an audible gasp from the pews)
Pastor Greg: Uh...how's what hanging?
DL: Nevermind
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, don't antagonize Mr. Beelz. I've heard he has a terrible temper.
Not compared to the guy who kicked him out of the best place in existence for asking questions, who in this mythology did the biggest multi-genocide of all time, and also sponsored some other genocides.
Re: (Score:2)
You joke, but there is a certain small faction that want to see the end of days and Rapture occur in their own lifetime.
LOL. As if their God will go, "Oh, looks like you guys are about to mass suicide, I should activate The Rapture now to ensure that it happens the way I promised."
ROFL, the arrogance of thinking a person can command a God.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, what did that "P" stand for? (Score:2)
n/t, just despair.
Re: Now, what did that "P" stand for? (Score:2)
Privatisation.
Next up, a declaration that pi equals three (Score:3, Insightful)
Fucking muppets. All because Trump got pissy that wind turbines are visible from his shitey golf course. Janey Godley had the measure of him
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This has already been attempted: Indiana pi bill [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the point of what I was saying is that the Trump people are aping the worse idiocies of early anti-science US legislators, but now thanks to your assumption that people on here know nothing, I've had to spell out it in full instead of just alluding to it, and it loses some rhetorical power as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
This removes from the EPA the ability to dictate how one lives or what one buys....a power that has gotten far to extensive and intrusive the past few decades.
The EPA has a place....but needs to be put back into its place and not have the huge influence and effect on our economy and individualism as it has grown to have.
Re: (Score:2)
We understand. We understand quite well. You want the right to kill your neighbors, and you want government to defend that right. And as your neighbors, the rest of us do not want the government to encourage and support you in killing your neighbors.
You're currently winning this battle -- or so you think, until you realize that you are someone else's neighbor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, even my ICE car vs an EV being mandated is not going to shorten your life in any statistically revlavent manner.
The Fed govt is not there to tell me how to run my life or what I can buy....we need to clamp down on the overreach by pretty much all of the federal agencies that intruder into the daily life of the average citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
A cornerstone of American freedom used to be captured in the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". When someone pollutes the air everyone breathes, they're doing a lot more damage than punching you in the nose, and their rights have to be weighed against your rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing me to not be able to buy and used incandescent light bulbs,, or low water use toilets or any of the myriad of things that have served us just fine in the recent past is not swinging a fucking fist at your nose.
The EP
Obvious motivation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:3)
It's ALWAYS about money.
Don't Look Up pretty much hits the mark.
Re: (Score:2)
It's ALWAYS about money.
Don't Look Up pretty much hits the mark.
Furthermore, it's about short-term money. There will be financial losers due to the decisions today affecting climate change, but those are long-term effects. The government and many corporate folks suffer from temporal myopia.
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:4, Insightful)
Money has it's uses.
So does clean air.
You can't pick one over the other. But they are.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that money buys clean air.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1... [etsy.com]
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:4, Insightful)
So, can anyone explain the panic?
The things that make wind and solar cheaper are being destroyed by decisions such as this one. EPA regulations can be costly for the fossil fuel industry, especially if they (rightly) declare CO2 emissions harmful. Other things that make wind and solar cheaper, such subsidies and free trade, are also being dismantled by the current administration.
Your argument also makes the mistake of viewing all of these things as static. Wind and solar may be cheaper now, but there's always supply and demand to contend with. If we started replacing all our fossil fuel power generation with wind and solar, that would create such a great supply/demand imbalance that costs would go up (especially with solar considering the tariff craziness). On the flip side, the less we use fossil fuels, the cheaper they will become (at least as long as they are still extracted and stored in large quantities).
You're also not considering that when people say "wind and solar are cheaper," they're talking about new construction. If you're going to build a new source of power generation, then wind and solar are probably the best options. But if you already run a natural gas plant or a coal power plant, wind and solar are not cheaper for you. You already have all this money producing capital tied up in fossil fuels. We need regulator pressure, taxes, and laws to force these legacy fossil fuel plants to convert to green energy sources.
Another major point your argument misses is that this is not just about generating electricity. Fossil fuels are used extensively in the production of steel and they are the primary energy source for transportation. CO2 is produced in large quantities by livestock, people, furnaces, stoves, forest fires, and the production of concrete. I'm sure there are many other examples that I missed. This is not a problem that can be solved with wind turbines and solar panels alone.
I'm pretty sure that money buys clean air.
Yes, when the government spends money on regulations and subsidies to promote/require clean air. This is the opposite of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Your argument also makes the mistake of viewing all of these things as static. Wind and solar may be cheaper now, but there's always supply and demand to contend with. If we started replacing all our fossil fuel power generation with wind and solar, that would create such a great supply/demand imbalance that costs would go up (especially with solar considering the tariff craziness). On the flip side, the less we use fossil fuels, the cheaper they will become (at least as long as they are still extracted and stored in large quantities).
I can agree to that,and this is apparently lost on people, especially those that make the claims on battery-electric vehicles being cheaper than internal combustion vehicles. When demand goes up then so will prices. If we have an increased demand on renewable energy then we can expect prices to go up. So what are we to do? By all evidence I see the "out" on this is nuclear fission. If we are to reduce CO2 emissions without a rise in energy costs then it must come with more energy from nuclear fission.
Re: (Score:3)
If we are to reduce CO2 emissions without a rise in energy costs then it must come with more energy from nuclear fission.
Nuclear fission will cost more. I'm not opposed to nuclear fission, but I'm opposed to any concern about costs. Reducing CO2 emissions is all that matters.
If we need government to force the fossil fuel costs higher then that exposes the lie that wind and solar is not in fact cheaper
We've already established, and you've agreed, that these things are constantly in flux. There are tons of subsidies and regulations for fossil fuels, too. Whether fossil fuels or wind/solar are cheaper will always be tied to choices made by the government. If fossil fuels are cheaper than wind/solar then the government is failing us.
If the goal is lower CO2 emissions then electricity production is the "low hanging fruit" on producing the most benefit with the least effort.
But this regulatory ch
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear fission will cost more.
What makes nuclear fission cost more?
Just take a look at a nuclear power plant. What in there is expensive? It's a lot of steel concrete. Many of the components used are mass produced items that can be had for cheap and delivered by Amazon or whatever. So, what makes nuclear fission expensive?
Regulation makes nuclear fission expensive.
I can hear it now, "we need regulation in nuclear fission to keep it safe" but we have regulation in a lot of things to keep them safe, so what makes nuclear fission so ex
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear fission will cost more. I'm not opposed to nuclear fission, but I'm opposed to any concern about costs. Reducing CO2 emissions is all that matters.
Costs always matter under capitalism, which dominates the planet. Unless you're advocating for public ownership of everything, they will continue to matter.
All this bullshit about "they said wind is cheaper!" misses the point. Who gives a shit if "they" are right or wrong about that point? All that matters is that we support politicians who will take steps to reduce CO2 emissions and oppose those who will not.
Promoting nuclear power is opposing taking the most effective steps to reduce CO2 emissions because 1) we use money to control production and therefore it matters and 2) for the same amount of money we can achieve greater CO2 reduction with wind and solar than with nuclear.
Pretending that capitalism doesn't matter is ignoring the dominant paradigm of the
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously but the idea that this is a choice between the two has always been a lie. Nothing about acting on climate change has to involve the country getting poorer.
In fact I would present the contrary, that the Unites States has abandoned trillions in economic growth and manufacturing by conservatives making their platform "liberal accept science so we have to reject" it posturing for decades.
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
I’d pay for study that examines why conservatives constantly think about genders and trans people.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives think they are correct. Therefore, any behavior patterns that are different, need to be attacked to ensure that the correct behavior pattern emerges.
Of course, the attacks don't actually change the behaviors that are being attacked, because the behaviors are not wrong and people will not stop those behaviors they do not perceive as wrong.
Soooo, we get a bunch of boring people yelling and screaming about topics that are important to them but that nobody else really cares about. Welcome to socie
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet here we are with the conservative bringing it above.
Re: (Score:3)
What you’ve pointed out shows the pointlessness of treating these people as though they’re arguing in good faith. Their actions are much better explained by accepting that they’re just awful and willing to say absolutely anything to get what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)d pay for study that examines why conservatives constantly think about genders and trans people.
I can save you a lot of money on that. It's because the liberals can't stop bringing it up.
Bullshit. Liberals wouldn't be saying anything about them if conservatives weren't vilifying and persecuting them.
Re: (Score:3)
The only people I ever see bringing it up are conservatives while advocating for discrimination.
Liberals would be perfectly happy to never bring it up again, because that would mean everyone is being treated equally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was gonna respond with refutations to your points but then I realized... nothing you posted refutes my point, actually either of them.
"The liberals wanted to make my dishwasher use less electricity so I had to reject the very concept of science" is really your point
Re: (Score:2)
If it were my choice to purchase a costlier but more functional device...okay.
My friend in christ, you as an American citizen in 2025 have access to a greater variety of dishwashers with a greater variety of cost and features then anytime in human history. From a $300 Fridgidaire to a $4000 Miele to buying a commercial "no electricity savings here" unit from Websturant right now, it'll be here on Friday.
Once again:
"The liberals wanted to make my dishwasher use less electricity so I had to reject the very concept of science"
Re: (Score:2)
It is very much analogous in kind (if not degree) to "let them eat cake."
I mean, comparing yourself to Marie Antoinette in this situation probably isn't what you intended, but it's certainly apt. Basically, you're saying that you're okay with destroying the world for future generations if it means you can use whatever damn dish washer you feel like. Sort of like Marie Antoinette spiting the starving masses who dragged her to the guillotine. Sure, she could have prevented the situation by living a more modest lifestyle, but fuck that!
There is no civilization without government, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So we are way past climate change here (Score:2, Insightful)
Those companies are currently on the honor system and the only thing holding them back is the possibility that the Republican party might lose some elections.
And with the damage done to the voting Rights act and the voter suppression going around that possibility gets lower every year.
I would like to say that every person here who votes Republican
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, the good news is that most of that cancer-causing stuff is getting sprayed on trump voters, who apparently welcome it. The bad news is that these too are all human beings, worthy of life and love, and
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you got downvoted as a "Troll" for pointing out the obvious fact that our current government is eliminating many of the safeguards that protect "the commons" (and thus, the citizens)
Because he's wrong about one thing: The Republicans will read the thread. And they say "that's woke bullshit" so they don't have to think, and then they attack so nobody else has to think either. If they can save some of their brothers in stupidity from having to think, that's a win for them.
IF CO2 isn't dangerous (Score:2)
How about we put them in a room filled with it and see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
The same could be said about nitrogen which comprises 78% of our atmosphere. :-)
Also, people make a lot of CO2. We need to do something about that
Re: (Score:2)
How about we put them in a room filled with it and see what happens.
How about we put people in a room full of 100% pure oxygen. Oxygen isn't dangerous, right? Except that it is quite dangerous in that concentration. If it isn't the threat of a runaway fire burning everyone alive, which could be set off by a simple static spark in a room devoid of all humidity as people could burst into flames because they shuffled their feet the "wrong way" over the floor, then it could be the onset of oxygen toxicity over a matter of just a couple hours of exposure.
So, sure, run your ex
Good!! (Score:2)
Now the scientific community has a real chance at bringing forward in-depth cross-referenced research and answer back to all those "un-scientific" beliefs circulting in this mis-informed, biased circle of selfish money-grabbing ancient business models. All on record and destined to jurisprudence.
Eco-friendly is expensive? Yes! ...for some, that'd be about zero. Let's see how many agree
But how much is a human life worth?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Now the scientific community has a real chance at bringing forward in-depth cross-referenced research and answer back to all those "un-scientific" beliefs circulting in this mis-informed, biased circle of selfish money-grabbing ancient business models. All on record and destined to jurisprudence.
What do you mean by this? How does this actually happen? The rich people have bought up all the media, and the current administration which they used their purchases to install dictates what can be "brought" anywhere, and threatens anyone who doesn't agree with them with a variety of horrors including against their family and peers.
It doesn't matter what a bunch of well-meaning nerds tell each other behind closed doors. They are an utter minority of the voting populace, and the current administration in han
I never liked this head fake (Score:3)
The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
It is telling to see text from the 60s reinterpreted to include climate change in the 2000's. Personally I think the text was obviously intended to address pollution (poisonous shit) that directly endangers public health......not contributes to global changes in the earths climate that can then endanger public health or welfare.
Personally I think the reinterpretation in the 2000s was wrong and opportunistic. If people think green house gases like those emitted as a result of breathing are harmful to public health due to contributions to climate change and they want regulation to that effect then lawmakers should vote on legislation to implement such regulation.
If one political faction is allowed to intrepret legislation one way it is hard to care about hurt feelings when another faction comes in and is allowed to reinterpret it in another. I am not addressing the merits of the underlying issue only my view that the process being utilized here sucks.
Re: (Score:3)
As recently as 2007 SCOTUS ruled [justia.com] that the EPA could regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As the Court has gotten more conservative since then - more antag
Re: (Score:2)
Referring to the human impact of increased CO2 levels as similar to "gases emitted as a result of breathing" is a dumb take. It'd be like dismissing the danger of flooding due to the fact that we also drink water without dying as a result.
The increase in global CO2 levels since the beginning of industrialization, which has been on a staggering and indisputable level, is a result of industrialization, not as a result of people breathing. Go with the science and statistics, not dumb "I emit CO2 and I'm not de
Re: (Score:2)
... standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant ...
So is it about "quantity" or are we polluting when we breathe?
Re: (Score:2)
It is telling to see text from the 60s reinterpreted to include climate change in the 2000's. Personally I think the text was obviously intended to address pollution (poisonous shit) that directly endangers public health...
CO2 is poisonous and directly endangers public health. Increased CO2 levels do direct harm. The levels at which they do obvious measurable harm to anyone are significantly higher than where they are in the atmosphere on average now, but levels which affect health commonly occur in poorly ventilated spaces with lots of people in them.
However, your premise also is based on a falsehood. The definition of pollution is not and never was "poisonous shit".
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 is poisonous and directly endangers public health. Increased CO2 levels do direct harm. The levels at which they do obvious measurable harm to anyone are significantly higher than where they are in the atmosphere on average now, but levels which affect health commonly occur in poorly ventilated spaces with lots of people in them.
The issue of CO2 concentrations on human health has been the subject of extensive study by both military and civilian agencies spanning decades. There is still nothing to support the notion public health is endangered by CO2 levels that could ever reasonably be anticipated as a consequence of human activity. Submarines for example routinely have CO2 concentrations 20x that of current outdoor average with no ill effects observed. The studies I'm aware of that noted superficial effects indicated they are t
Regulating Climate and Regulating Energy (Score:3)
The two are different, and doing one is not doing the other.
The endangerment finding did not enable the regulation of climate. It could not do that. Regulating climate is way beyond the ability of the US or any US regulatory agency to do. The US is too small an economy and does too small a fraction of global emissions (12% and falling) for it to be able to regulate climate or affect it by local action.
Its example has no effects on the largest fastest growing emitters. They don't believe in the alleged climate crisis and all they do about emissions is grow their economies as fast as possible, and let emissions go wherever they go. The endangerment finding and policies based on it have no traction outside the US. And maybe the UK, with its tiny emissions.
The endangerment finding does enable US energy regulation. That is a different thing altogether, but US energy policy has no effects on the global climate.
People need to stop confusing these two things. Argue for energy regulation on its merits. But don't try and argue for it on climate grounds, there are none.
Re: He's right.. (Score:3)
Not being serious about combating climate change doesn't make science not real.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, but by their logic, if climate change was real then the all powerful satanic cabal of gay jewish communists would have done something about it.
Fire up the jewish space lasers, me hearties, we're fixing AGW!
Re: (Score:2)
While there is a theory that there is "one God" and therefore "one truth" - because its "what God sees/saw" they do not believe that. They may claim to, but they also do not have a concept of "understanding" - again, there is only what they want, or what they don't: their brains can't pass this barrier.
They are certainly not Christians or Jews in the normal, every day, meanings of those words.
They are, in fact, id
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The "science" coming from an institution that goes to war for oil and subsidizes the industry and bases its currency on the petrodollar is very much in doubt.
Ad Hominem
They are simply advocating more austerity by limiting what we consume while they fly off to climate junkets in the middle east in their personal 747. It's a tragicomedy of epic proportions
Hypocrisy also don't make science false.
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore isn't a scientist. I don't think most climate scientists are living lives of lavish wastefulness, taking private jets to their academic conferences. Your post hasn't provided any examples of why you should think that.
Politicians and celebrities may speak out advocating for green climate policies and then hypocritically fly around on private jets and excessively consume. But no one is asking you to listen to those people. They're asking you to listen to climate scientists.
If you have dismissed the en
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore isn't a scientist.
He certainly claims to speak with the support of science.
I don't think most climate scientists are living lives of lavish wastefulness, taking private jets to their academic conferences. Your post hasn't provided any examples of why you should think that.
If the person that claims to speak on behalf of scientists can't be bothered to act in a manner supported by the science then should that not raise some kind of doubt in the science?
Politicians and celebrities may speak out advocating for green climate policies and then hypocritically fly around on private jets and excessively consume. But no one is asking you to listen to those people. They're asking you to listen to climate scientists.
If the only people that we can see speaking for the climate scientists are those that act in ways contradictory to what they ask of us then shouldn't there be some doubt in what they preach?
Clearly not all of those calling for lower CO2 emissions are such hypocrites but th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you told me that eating strawberries will kill me and I see you eating strawberries at every meal"
I told you that eating strawberries will kill you. The fact that I could eat strawberries does not make what I told you false. It may be (to use what you are suggesting) that the rich can in fact safely eat strawberries (because, well, they are rich). That doesn't make them being harmful to you false.
"Why should I listen to a hypocrite?"
Well, perhaps because it would be in your own best interest?
Re: (Score:2)
If you told me that eating strawberries will kill me and I see you eating strawberries at every meal, and to have a strawberry daiquiri every evening then should I not have reason to doubt your beliefs in what you claim? If strawberries mean death then I'd expect you to avoid them as best as you can, potentially going to great lengths to have all those around you to also never touch a strawberry.
And you would still be an idiot, because there are multiple reasons why it could still be true that eating a strawberry could kill you, but not someone else. Off the top of my head: allergic reaction and anaphylaxis.
This is just one reason that your huge screed is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously believe in reality. Therefore you are "woke" and everything you say must be ignored!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's three prevailing techniques:
1. completely ignore it, and bend over backwards to somehow justify it because you can't possibly deal with the mental injury of being wrong in your choices
2. live in existential despair because there's nothing that can be done about it (legally) until November of 2026.
3. completely and absolutely ignore politics of any stripe, instead spending your time watching vapid banal drek on TikTok.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)