EPA's next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations

Unleashing EPA bureaucrats on American livelihoods, living standards and liberties

By David Rothbard and Craig Rucker

Supported by nothing but assumptions, faulty computer models and outright falsifications of what is actually happening on our planet, President Obama, his Environmental Protection Agency and their allies have issued more economy-crushing rules that they say will prevent dangerous manmade climate change .

Under the latest EPA regulatory onslaught (645 pages of new rules, released June 2), by 2030 states must slash carbon dioxide emissions by 30% below 2005 levels.

The new rules supposedly give states “flexibility” in deciding how to meet the mandates. However, many will have little choice but to impose costly cap-tax-and-trade regimes like the ones Congress has wisely and repeatedly refused to enact. Others will be forced to close perfectly good, highly reliable coal-fueled power plants that currently provide affordable electricity for millions of families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses. The adverse impacts will be enormous.

The rules will further hobble a US economy that actually shrank by 1% during the first quarter of 2014, following a pathetic 1.9% total annual growth in 2013. They are on top of $1.9 trillion per year (one-eighth of our total economy) that businesses and families already pay to comply with federal rules.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually, result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities. Poor, middle class and minority families – and those already dependent on unemployment and welfare – will be impacted worst. Those in a dozen states that depend on coal to generate 30-95% of their electricity will be hit especially hard.

Millions of Americans will endure a lower quality of life and be unable to heat or cool their homes properly, pay their rent or mortgage, or save for college and retirement. They will suffer from greater stress, worse sleep deprivation, higher incidences of depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, and more heart attacks and strokes. As Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) points out, “A lot of people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are going to die.” EPA ignores all of this.

It also ignores the fact that, based to the agency’s own data, shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the USA would reduce the alleged increase in global temperatures by a mere 0.05 degrees F by 2100!

President Obama nevertheless says the costly regulations are needed to reduce “carbon pollution” that he claims is making “extreme weather events” like Superstorm Sandy “more common and more devastating.” The rules will also prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in their first year alone, while also curbing sea level rise, forest fires and other supposed impacts from “climate disruption,” according to ridiculous talking points provided by EPA boss Gina McCarthy.

As part of a nationwide White House campaign to promote and justify the regulations, the American Lung Association echoed the health claims. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the rules will “drive innovation and investment” in green technology, creating “hundreds of thousands” of new jobs.

Bear in mind, the ALA received over $20 million from the EPA between 2001 and 2010. NRDC spends nearly $100 million per year (2012 IRS data) advancing its radical agenda. Both are part of a $13.4-billion-per-year U.S. Big Green industry that includes the Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation ($145 million per year), National Audubon Society ($96 million), Environmental Defense Fund ($112 million annually), Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund ($46 million), and numerous other special interest groups dedicated to slashing fossil fuel use and reducing our living standards. All are tax-exempt.

As to the claims themselves, they are as credible as the endlessly repeated assertions that we will all be able to keep our doctor and insurance policies, Benghazi was a spontaneous protest, and there is not a scintilla of corruption in the IRS denials of tax-exempt status to conservative groups.

The very term “carbon pollution” is deliberately disingenuous. The rules do not target carbon (aka soot). They target carbon dioxide. This is the gas that all humans and animals exhale. It makes life on Earth possible. It makes crops and other plants grow faster and better. As thousands of scientists emphasize, at just 0.04% of our atmosphere, CO2 plays only a minor role in climate change – especially compared to water vapor and the incredibly powerful solar, cosmic, oceanic and other natural forces that have caused warm periods, ice ages and little ice ages, and controlled climate and weather for countless millennia.

The terrible disasters that the President and other climate alarmists attribute to fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are creatures of computer models that have gotten virtually no predictions correct. That should hardly be surprising. The models are based on faulty assumptions of every size and description, and are fed a steady diet of junk science and distorted data. We shouldn’t trust them any more than we would trust con artists who claim their computers can predict stock markets or Super Bowl and World Series winners – even one year in advance, much less 50 or 100 years.

The models should absolutely not be trusted as the basis for regulations that will cripple our economy.

Contrary to model predictions and White House assertions, average global temperatures have not risen in almost 18 years. It’s now been over eight years since a category 3-5 hurricane hit the United States – the longest such period in over a century. Tornadoes are at a multi-decade low. Droughts are no more intense or frequent than since 1900. There were fewer than half as many forest fires last year as during the 1960s and 1970s. Sea levels rose just eight inches over the last 130 years and are currently rising at barely seven inches per century. There’s still ice on Lake Superior – in June! Runaway global warming, indeed.

This is not dangerous. It’s not because of humans. It does not justify what the White House is doing.

Asthma has been increasing for years – while air pollution has been decreasing. The two are not related. In fact, as EPA data attest, between 1970 and 2010, real air pollution from coal-fired power plants has plummeted dramatically – and will continue to do so because of existing rules and technologies.

For once the President is not “leading from behind” on foreign policy. However, there is no truth to his claim that other countries will follow our lead on closing coal-fired power plants and slashing carbon dioxide emissions. China, India and dozens of other developing countries are rapidly building coal-fueled generators, so that billions of people will finally enjoy the blessings of electricity and be lifted out of poverty. Even European countries are burning more coal to generate electricity, because they finally realize they cannot keep subsidizing wind and solar, while killing their energy-intensive industries.

Then what is really going on here? Why is President Obama imposing some of the most pointless and destructive regulations in American history? He is keeping his campaign promises to his far-left and hard-green ideological supporters, who detest hydrocarbons and want to use climate change to justify their socio-economic-environmental agenda.

Mr. Obama promised that electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket” and that he would “bankrupt” the coal industry and “fundamentally transform” America. His top science advisor, John Holdren, has long advocated a “massive campaign” to “de-develop the United States,” divert energy and other resources from what he calls “frivolous and wasteful” uses that support modern living standards, and enforce a “much more equitable distribution of wealth.” The President and his Executive Branch bureaucrats are committed to controlling more and more of our lives, livelihoods and liberties.

They believe no one can stop them, and they will never be held accountable for ignoring our laws, for their corruption, or even for any job losses, deaths or other destruction they may leave in their wake.

Every American who still believes in honest science, accountable Constitutional government – and the right of people everywhere to affordable energy and modern living standards – must tell these radical ideologues that this power grab will not be tolerated.

David Rothbard is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), a nonprofit educational organization devoted to both people and the environment. Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I do find myself wondering just how, in the years to come, they are going to back-pedal on all this insanity?

Bloke down the pub

Well O’Bama got voted in by someone. Until the US votes in a president who knows what he’s talking about, you’ll have to put up with what you’ve got. I just pray that when the UK next has a general election, that we don’t end up with Milliband, the idiot who introduced many of our stupid climate regulations.

JIm Cripwell

Sorry. No-one who matters is interested. Try getting Dr. Susan Seestrom’s attention.


The next sane president can start by gutting the EPA and strictly limiting it’s mandate. Next thing is to completely cut all funding from anything climate related. Shut down the dept. of energy. The country doesn’t need any dept. that actively works against it’s citizens. Use the tactics they are using against us, in other words demonize those people who are nothing more than extreme left-wing enviro’s like Mckibbon, Hansen, Holdren, Gore and many others. Also, cut all subsidies to fake energy industries like wind, solar and ethanol.
To top it all off take away any enviro’s right to sue for any supposed damages to the environment. Take all the money out of the game and it becomes not worth doing and these human haters will go away.

Steve R

Did the ALA really say that CO2 is bad for the lungs?


So Obama, now that the damage has been installed via the EPA, he has sealed his fate for the result of the next election in the US. Maybe he should take note of what is very likely to happen in Australia in July.

Martin Mason

But don’t forget that this is not about science but politics and America and Europe ARE going to slash CO2 consumption and reduce everybody’s standard of living accordingly. In return the developing world doesn’t industrialize but gets climate reparation aid from the West amounting to 1%+ of GDP all in the aid of sustainability in the form of UN Agenda 21. I’m reading the book “The Age of Global Warming”, and it is all very clear now.
Do you think these guys do nothing at Climate Fests and other UN meetings? They do lots mainly in the cause of World Government


“Steve R says:
June 5, 2014 at 4:02 am”
If the ALA did say such a thing then they are clearly set in alarm mode. CO2 is critical for beathing and lung function, health and blood pH balance.

The rules will further hobble a US economy that actually shrank by 1% during the first quarter of 2014, following a pathetic 1.9% total annual growth in 2013.

One must remember that in the fall of 2012, Obama changed the calculation for GDP. Adding in Accounts Receivable (double counting them) as well as R&D expenditures. The effect was to inflate GDP growth by 2.5-3%. So in effect, without that change, growth would be negative for the last 5 quarters. It only takes 2 to make a recession.

Lank is perplexed

Welcome to the third world USA.
Why on earth does the USA go through the process of electing a Congress when the President rules by decree?


Jones said: “…how, in the years to come, they are going to back-pedal on all this insanity?”
They aren’t. If there’s NO warming, their action plan worked great, hurray! But if there IS warming, we’ll need to kick up the regulations a notch. It’s a win-win for O & Co.
Do you know anybody under the age of 30 that isn’t a “believer” in AGW? checkmate.


I know a 12 year old boy who thinks it’s all rubbish.
Looks like me too……
It’s worse than I thought.

Under President O’Barmy, the Krazy Kats are stepping up the pace of de-industrialization and ruination of America. In the UK, there is a real fear the Millipede will lead the Labour Party to an insane victory over common sense at the General Election.
All this is very good news for the Chinese who are standing by to manufacture any obtuse device with which the West thinks it can generate Stone-Age Energy, The Chinese, Japanese and Koreans will ably assist their competitors to stab themselves in the back. They, themselves, however will not be crippling their economies with these obtuse devices. There are no massed ranks of ;windmills; on show in Japan, Korea and China. A recent two month visit confirms this. The East Asians have more sense than to do such foolish things. They do not despoil their sacred landscapes with such horrors, but will happily ship them to fools who want to do so with them.
Fortunately in Australia, Scepticism has triumphed and July may see the repeal of vast slabs of CAGW legislation rolled out by the Labour Party four years ago. What we need now are suggestions for the rusting, mostly idle ranks of windmills rushed up in response to lavish subsidies.
Someone should point out to O’Barmy and the Krazy Kats that the temperature of the Earth has been stable for 18 years 8 months…..no,,,,that;s been tried!


I’ve been telling people for years that our government operates like organized crime; they make the rules and punish anyone who breaks them. Their system creates dependency and destroys liberty, once you’re in you can NEVER get out. If you don’t know it by now ALL of the fight against climate change is designed to enslave us and empower them.
It does not matter if a government policy fails; they simply trot out a minion to hit all the Sunday “news” show to declare it a success. As long as bureaucrats make the laws Congress and the Constitution are irrelevant. Lies all of it lies.


All of my kids are under thirty and thanks to parental involvement, none believe in global warming. Now, my co-workers in the legal aid office, that’s another matter. At least they are open to the idea that, economically, this might be hurt.

Mike Bromley the Kurd

I feel sorry for the United States. I don’t know what else to say. Obama promised to do this. And people voted him in anyway. Geez….

Coach Springer

This move by the EPA recognized the poor scientific and political support with regard to climate and tied it also to “saved lives” from claimed health benefits. It’s government junk science and the same thing as claiming proof from any result whatsoever. Thanks to Steve Milloy for prominently recognizing and publicizing the seriousness of this politically based statistics game that they play – particularly regarding particulate matter. There is much work to be done on this issue which will be increasingly the SOP for the government.
It is possible to design a study – if one does not already exist – that will “support” a conclusion that any activity X reduces a potential threat. To illustrate the principle for the environmental alarmist, Keystone XL could be observed to provide energy to help the poor which could improve their lot and save lives. And that would be a more accurate conclusion than stopping Keystone saves lives. Here’s an easier one yet requiring only reading the news; There are X number of deaths based on commuter rail accidents and suicides every year. Therefore, you’re killing X number of people in the Chicago area if you’re supporting CTA and METRA and can save those lives if you do away with commuter rail.


starzmom “All of my kids are under thirty and thanks to parental involvement, none believe in global warming.”
All of mine are under 30 too, but unfortunately I’m only at 66%. I have one daughter that still believes the government would never lie to us.
I’m the old guy in an shop of young liberals. Maybe another winter of obscene gas bills might make them want a tin-foil hat too. They hate when I mention it hasn’t warmed since they left diapers.


President Obama nevertheless says the costly regulations are needed to reduce “carbon pollution” that he claims is making “extreme weather events” like Superstorm Sandy “more common and more devastating.” The rules will also prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in their first year alone, while also curbing sea level rise, forest fires and other supposed impacts from “climate disruption,” according to ridiculous talking points provided by EPA boss Gina McCarthy.
Completely unsupported scientifically w/numbers just pulled out of the air to sound alarming. Should be criminal behavior.


Obama should read this especailly the last paragraph http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/06/02/australia-poised-repeal-carbon-tax
He will go down in history like Gillard in Australia no one will remeber him as a President worth remembering. You can be absolutely sure that very few in the Australian labour party would support anything about “Global warming” anymore! (even if they were re-elected. Apparently Australians have completely lost interest in the subject LOL

tom s

I will NEVER give 1 cent to the American Lung Assoc….

Steve R. and Patrick.
Here is what the ALA (of California) states:
“Climate change is real and the time to act is now. Greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change pose a serious threat to our environment, and it also puts our own health at risk. Rising temperatures in California brought about by climate change will most likely lead to more extreme heat events and air pollution, which means serious threats to lung health such as an increase and worsening of asthma attacks and hospital visits for breathing problems.”
Worse than this perhaps is the national ALA’s new Youtube video which you can watch and comment on here:
All you need to know to understand the ALA advocacy position:
1. The ALA fundraises from the public.
2. It is headquartered in Chicago.

The left understands it’s junk science and propaganda while “skeptics” think the issue will be decided by actual “science”, which is kinda stupid historically;


“techheadted says:
June 5, 2014 at 5:43 am”
And thus its’ claims can be easily disproved, even using Wikipedia as a source.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

Secret Service Requests Software To Track Social Media Trends, Detect Sarcasm
Benjamin Fearnow
June 4, 2014 10:45 AM
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – The U.S. Secret Service is seeking software that can identify top influencers and trending sets of social media data, allowing the agency to monitor these streams in real-time – and sift through the sarcasm.
A work order posted online Monday shows that the agency desires analytics software that can watch users in real time, collecting a range of data including “emotions of Internet users to old Twitter messages” across multiple languages.
The Secret Service is also seeking software that can complete very succinct tasks within massive sets of continuously flowing social media data, such as locating users and detecting sarcasm.
“Ability to detect sarcasm and false positives,” reads the request.

Now why would the sworn defenders of the first inherently non-racist US President, known for the unprecedented transparency of his Administration, and for numerous humanitarian actions such as supporting the oppressed and repressed religious minorities in Libya and Egypt, and helping desperate Afghan citizens who had been accidentally assigned to a refuge camp to reunite with their families and former employment, who single-handedly lead America’s greatest ever economic recovery by prodding investor activity through creatively distributing future donations of all future taxpayers among trusted friends and associates, be worried about sarcasm which could possibly disguise negative attitudes towards our much-beloved Supreme Defender of American Law and Security and Socially Responsible Equitable Distribution of Wealth?


Goodbye America!
Hallo China!

G. Karst

Six words:
Tax revolt
Civil disobedience
Spring Revolution
Americans must recall their origins. GK


jones says:
June 5, 2014 at 3:07 am
They won’t. When the warming stops, they’ll just claim that their regulations were the cause, then they will double down.
When acid rain was proven to be false, they didn’t eliminate the regulations.
When the ozone hole was proven to be a scam, the ban on CFCs wasn’t removed.


nigelf says:
June 5, 2014 at 3:49 am
You are assuming that there will be any sane presidents in the future. 50% of voters pay no income taxes and about a third receive checks from the govt.
I fear that the point of no return has been passed.


their ignorance would be insulting to intelligent people……..


The biggest worry, and biggest disgrace, is that MSM ignore papers like this and keep spewing out the rubbish that the politicians’ press poodles feed to them.


at least the Chinese media is waking up!
5 June: South China Morning Post: Howard Winn: When it comes to earth’s climate, change is normal
Those convinced that human-induced global warming is going to bring an end to the world as we know it would do well to read the testimony by Dr Daniel Botkin, Professor Emeritus, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
His testimony was given to the US House Subcommittee on Science, Space and Technology, which was examining the 2014 report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
He adopts a refreshingly dispassionate and clear approach to a controversial subject that is usually couched in highly charged emotional terms.
Botkin has been publishing research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects, and the implications for people and biodiversity since 1968.
In his testimony, he says he approached the subject as a scientist but laments that in recent years “the subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate”…
Botkin acknowledges the world has been going through a “warming period driven by a variety of influences”, but says this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterisations by the IPCC and the White House National Climate Assessment, “these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible”…
Commenting on the warming period and the current plateau, where the earth’s temperature has not changed for the past 17 years, he says: “The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the ‘mystery’ of the warming ‘plateau’ simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere.
“Change is normal, life on earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.”
He draws attention to the weakness of the climate models…

Peter Stroud

It would seem that the USA now has the worst president, and administration in living memory. At least you have a credible opposition: here in the UK we are not so fortunate. We have a Conservative led coalition, with the Liberal Democrat party. In which the Conservative leadership, and the entire LibDem parliamentary membership are in love with the green fanatics. But so to is the socialist opposition. So we look forward to the same idiotic policies, as those being adopted by Obama.


A very common charge made by people who oppose the Government regulations and the radical environmentalists, is that they wish to destroy our economy. I wist that were true, it would be easier to fight.
I think they are true believers. They truly do think that these measures are good for us, and will lead to a much better world, and any indication that the opposite is happening merely means we are not spending enough, or regulating enough.
They will be starving in the streets, no heat, no power, and will still be saying that just you wait, we’ll turn the corner to utopia any minute. You can not convince a true-believer. You simply have to do all you can to remove them from any positions that will allow them to drag the rest of us down with them.
Science and facts will do nothing. We have to use the only weapon we have that will work. Organize, vote, use the power of the internet to coordinate.
The various organizations have power because they can present the politicians with a cohesive voting block. If you want to defeat them you need to be able to prove to your local politician that you have x-number of votes lined up, and if he wants them, he’d better be prepared to give you what you want.

Alan Robertson

nigelf says:
June 5, 2014 at 3:49 am
The next sane president can start by gutting the EPA and strictly limiting it’s mandate.
Hillary? She’s likely to be the next POTUS. Just consider the modern voter base.
The Democratic party has gone full- on statist and any Dem. POTUS would mean further ruin, with the possibility of massive civil unrest/revolt and complete destruction of the nation.

“The new rules supposedly give states “flexibility”…”
Yes, you must bend over but it’s completely your choice of lubricant.

Alan Robertson

Any shooting sports enthusiast will tell you that for the past 18 months, ammunition and ammunition hand- loading components are exceedingly difficult to acquire, even at current exorbitant prices, due to huge and unprecedented demand. US citizens are stockpiling weapons and ammunition.
Here’s an extract from a recent statement from the Hodgdon Powder Company:
“Why can’t I find Hodgdon powders?
(Revised April, 2014)
Hodgdon Powder Company continues to experience unprecedented demand for all smokeless powder. This demand has created a world-wide powder shortage…”
Make of this what you will.

Ann in L.A.

There is something here which confuses me. The states are sovereign entities and not vassals of the federal government. How is the federal government issuing these orders, and can’t the states simply say no? Who is on the receiving end of these orders? I know the feds have the power of the purse string and that they can cut off money that they give the states, but that’s the only power they have to order states around. If you are Washington state, and had a governor who wasn’t a twit, and if you were facing a command to reduce your carbon emissions by 70+% in 15 years, wouldn’t you look at the devastation that that would cause to your state, compare it to the money you get from the feds, do a quick calculation, and tell the feds to pound sand?

David Ball

Apparently no one is thinking of the children.

R. de Haan

@ jones says:
June 5, 2014 at 3:07 am
“I do find myself wondering just how, in the years to come, they are going to back-pedal on all this insanity?”
They won’t back-pedal on all this insanity.
I don’t know if you already know what’s going on but this is part of the plan to reduce the world population from 7 billion to 500 million.
So it has become a matter of them or you.
Time to go long on rope, tar and feathers. You’re going to need them.
http://green-agenda.com and UN Agenda 21


USA is gone . . . . . 35 years ago it was A dream now workmans wages is not enough for living. Food and energy bills are rising and salaries heading down, exept rich and super-rich people. Green is no more green it’s totalitarism. Vote demokrats or rebublicans policy won’t chance A bit.

David Chappell

pat says: June 5, 2014 at 6:43 am
…at least the Chinese media is waking up!
Regrettably not quite true. First the SCMP is not strictly “Chinese media”. It is a Hong Kong English language paper, not quite the same thing. Second, Howard Winn is very much the lone sensible voice on the paper. The editorial team is very,very pro global warming and that is reflected in another article on the same page so rife with error and misleading information that it is embarrassing.


What I would like to know is where is Rasmussen getting his responses to Obama’s approval index?
Compare that to Gallop.


CO2 has been established as a pollutant, yet this same trace gas is required for all life on earth. Has Any Government entity established the “Just right” range of CO2 in the atmosphere where it is not a pollutant and deemed Good? Someone should sue the EPA to force them to look at this where they actually say 399 PPM= good, 400PPM= bad, they may discover some truth along the way.
They would have to use real science to make this evaluation.

Steve C

@G. Karst – Aye. And not just Americans, either.

Shawn from High River

I feel sorry for the U.S.A.
Unfortunately my country (Canada) is so closely linked to the U.S. that when one hurts,the other feels it too.


Although I disagree with this heavy-handed regulation of CO2 as if it were a pollutant, I wonder if this will force whoever supports this to realize that solar & wind & hydro are insufficient.
Would it get them to take a second look at 4th generation nuclear power?
Is it true that 4th gen plants could run on waste from prior generation plants, thereby solving the disposal issues?
Is it true that if a disaster cuts off all cooling/support systems, this generation of reactors would shut off with no danger of meltdown?
Of course there is a big expense in building, but is it true that, once built, these plants could operate for 80+ years?
Are the barriers to deployment technical or political? Are these tested and ready to build?

Hot under the collar

This was a very good post on the cost of over regulation by the EPA and the nonsense of climate change. Unfortunately paragraph 11 detracts from the point of climate change when it starts talking about Benghazi, medical insurance and corruption in the IRS. If the original argument and point is well made it is not a good idea to start complaining about other issues (however they may be related in the mind of the author) otherwise the reader may read the whole article as a complaining rant.

Neil Jordan

Re kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: June 5, 2014 at 5:59 am
Secret Service Requests Software To Track Social Media Trends, Detect Sarcasm
I went to the GSA web site and reviewed the documents. It is more interesting than apparent in the news article, because the request for sarcasm detection includes a statistical test:
“•Ability to detect sarcasm and false positives;”
Perhaps the Statistician to the Stars might weigh in on this specification. To throw some fat on the fire, would Bayesian rather than Frequentist stastistics be the better choice to root out the true snarkers among us?


What sane person would want to pay “$3,400” more per year in higher prices to achieve “0.05 degrees F” lower temperatures (at most) by 2100?
Even that small reduction in global temperatures only happens if other countries like China and India do not burn the coal that America stops burning. With lower demand, the price of coal will go down, and the use by other countries will go up. So even if you’re a true believer, there is absolutely no reason to expect a reduction in global temperatures due to EPA policies. There will only be huge economic costs in exchange for no tangible benefits. It won’t even make hard-core environmentalists feel good. They’re already complaining that the EPA is going far enough. Nothing could make them happy short of the extinction of the human race. So it is futile to even try to please them.