Biden EPA Unveils New CO2 Crackdown On Coal & Natural Gas Power Plants – Claim to achieve ‘climate and public health benefits’


The EPA release claimed that the new regulations would produce “climate and public health benefits” worth $85 billion over the next two decades, as well as prevent premature deaths and hospital visits as a result of decreased particulate matter emissions. …

EPA Administrator Michael Regan: “Alongside historic investment taking place across America in clean energy manufacturing and deployment, these proposals will help deliver tremendous benefits to the American people, cutting climate pollution and other harmful pollutants, protecting people’s health, and driving American innovation.”

West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin: “This administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hellbent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal and gas-fueled power plants out of existence, no matter the cost to energy security and reliability,” the lawmaker said.


Marc Morano comment: “The Biden administration is not content to collapse our transportation system with gas, powered car bans, and EV mandates or to collapse our agricultural system with restrictions on meat-eating and high-yield agriculture. Biden continues his efforts to collapse American energy with his relentless war on reliable power with this EPA plan. This will only result in higher prices and shortages and do nothing for the alleged climate threat. The Biden administration is on a roll to crush Americans: Shortages, skyrocketing prices, destroying U.S. appliances with more water and power restrictions, stifling our air conditioning, and now even more restrictions on U.S. domestic energy production. Will they apply these same ‘climate pollution’ standards to windmills, solar panels, and EV batteries made in China?!”

By: Admin – Climate Depot

By  Ben Zeisloft

The Environmental Protection Agency released new carbon emissions standards for power plants that burn coal and natural gas, a move which some energy experts and lawmakers caution will decrease power reliability and artificially increase electricity costs for households.

The new regulations unveiled on Thursday morning would seek to avoid 617 million metric tons of total carbon dioxide emissions through 2042, equal to the emissions produced by half of the nation’s cars, as well as reduce the amount of particulate matter released into the atmosphere. The proposed limits would “require ambitious reductions in carbon pollution based on proven and cost-effective control technologies” at coal and natural gas plants, which account for 60% of power generation in the nation, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.

“By proposing new standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants, EPA is delivering on its mission to reduce harmful pollution that threatens people’s health and wellbeing,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a press release. “EPA’s proposal relies on proven, readily available technologies to limit carbon pollution and seizes the momentum already underway in the power sector to move toward a cleaner future. Alongside historic investment taking place across America in clean energy manufacturing and deployment, these proposals will help deliver tremendous benefits to the American people, cutting climate pollution and other harmful pollutants, protecting people’s health, and driving American innovation.”

The release claimed that the new regulations would produce “climate and public health benefits” worth $85 billion over the next two decades, as well as prevent premature deaths and hospital visits as a result of decreased particulate matter emissions. The new rules had been widely expected for weeks before their public release.

Jason Isaac, a director at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told The Daily Wire that the new regulations are “far-reaching” and will inevitably raise power costs for households.

“Carbon capture technologies are so expensive that the result will be the sudden retirement of reliable generation, and there will be nothing to replace it,” Isaac said. “This is a prime example of an unelected executive agency run amok, with a single-minded agenda of eliminating fossil fuels and controlling how we produce and consume energy regardless of the costs or consequences, all while doing nothing to mitigate a changing climate.”

The new emissions standards come months after the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. EPA that federal agencies cannot assert “highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.” Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow at the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, told The Daily Wire that the regulations have “no chance of withstanding” scrutiny from the Supreme Court but noted that a ruling might not come for many years, thereby allowing “much damage” to the power grid.

The Biden administration has established a “whole-of-government effort” to reduce carbon emissions in the public and private sectors. Beyond the introduction of additional EPA rules that would aim to increase nationwide adoption of electric cars, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently voiced support for a policy that would transition the military to rely exclusively upon electric vehicles by 2030.

West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, a frequent skeptic of Biden administration energy policies, announced on Wednesday that he would oppose every EPA nominee from the White House until the power plant rules are reversed.

“This administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hellbent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal and gas-fueled power plants out of existence, no matter the cost to energy security and reliability,” the lawmaker said.

4.9 14 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gunga Din
May 13, 2023 2:39 pm

The Executive Branch’s original purpose was to enforce the Laws passed by Congress. It or any of it’s agencies, all the way up to the Oval Office, does not have the Constitutional authority to make “regulations” that have the effect of Law.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Gunga Din
May 13, 2023 2:58 pm

Let me sharpen that a bit.

The relevant law school course is a third year biggy, called administrative law. As a long held practical matter, Congress cannot legislate every detail on every thing. So they can delegate ‘detail’ powers to the various agencies of the Executive branch that they authorize and then fund. Here, EPA. So the executive agencies can make regulations with the force of law when specifically so delegated.

The newish SCOTUS ‘major questions doctrine’ puts a big check on that, holding that on ‘major questions’ (under defined as yet) Agencies cannot make policy regulations where Congress has not clearly delegated. In essence, unless Congress specifically delegated, agencies cannot do what only Congress can.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 13, 2023 9:53 pm

Run, can you let the Democrat Party know. I don’t think any of them made it to the third year of law school.

Reply to  Rod Evans
May 14, 2023 11:51 am

Biden did graduate, but he went to Syracuse Law School (a very, very low-rated law school) on a “full scholarship”, he claimed, which is a major lie, and graduated near the bottom of his somewhat dummy law student class.
He must have felt right at home.

Later, he had an office in a University, because he donated his VP papers (nothing secret of course; they were safely kept in a pile, in his garage, next to his convertible, spotless, vintage, Corvette, and a few other places.

Also, he claimed to be a College professor, because they allowed him to make some speeches in front of students.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 14, 2023 11:13 am

Thanks for the sharpening.
There is a point where the ability to regulate upsets the checks and balances between the three branches of Government outlined by the US Constitution.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 14, 2023 11:40 am

That “delegating” is seriously abused, in almost all cases.

Here is a recent example.

EV CO2 Reduction is an Illusion, on a Lifetime, A-to-Z basis

A dozen states have joined California and some countries in passing legislation to ban the sale of highly reliable, long-range, gasoline vehicles, and push everyone into short-range (especially in winter), unreliable, expensive to own-and-operate electric vehicles.

Similarly, in a feat of regulatory hubris, the EPA has proposed emissions rules that would effectively ban gasoline vehicles, i.e., coerce automakers to abandon/strand 120 years of technology and to sell mostly, still-unreliable EVs.

Increasing Cost of the Inflation Reduction Act; which is inflationary

To push forward the EV takeover, the idiotically-named Inflation Reduction Act, (IRA), helicopters grossly-excessive subsidies across the EV ecosystem in the US, Canadian, Mexico and even in Europe.

The alleged, 10-y cost of the IRA is $385 billion, as estimated by the Office of Budget and Management, OBM, in 2022. 

NOTE: OBM serves only the US Congress to estimate the budget impact of to be enacted laws. 

Very often, private financial entities have significantly greater estimates, because their estimates are made for advising clients to invest, whereas the US Congress, has a much more “relaxed” approach regarding spending other people’s money.

The IRA also includes totally unrealistic goals for wind, solar and batteries by 2030

Senator Manchin, who provided the deciding vote, objected to the recent, expensive “implementation changes”.

He was warned he would be fooled before casting the deciding vote, and, indeed, he was!
He is considering running for President!

The actual 10-y cost will be about $1.045 TRILLION, according to the estimating advisors at the Wharton School of Finance, with input from Goldman-Sachs, because of “major changes of implementation” , made by the Biden government folks in 2023. 

This means the subsidy-gravy-train for investors, many of them foreign entities, in case of offshore wind turbines, will be almost 3 times bigger during these 10 years. Full steam ahead, to hell with the deficit!


Rud Istvan
May 13, 2023 2:42 pm

There are two big legal issues here that the EPA will NOT be able to overcome:

  1. There is NO commercially viable CCS, so EPA cannot mandate it per the explicit wording of the Clean Air Act itself. See my comment today to the previous post on this issue.
  2. This regulation triggers the newish SCOTUS major questions doctrine. Congress did NOT give EPA the right to reorder the electricity generation sector of the economy. And that is certainly a MAJOR question that only Congress can decide. Multistate electricity grids are within the Congressional purview of the interstate commerce clause of Article 1 Section 8.3.

So this Biden EPA attempt deliberately flaunts the law, like so much else Biden does:

  1. Redefining Title 9 specific ‘sex’ as self identified gender.
  2. Illegal immigrant ‘parole’ in violation of existing asylum law.
  3. Pretending 14A section 4 obviates Congressional debt limits, when A1 section 8.2 clearly gives borrowing power (or limits thereto) to Congress.
  4. Saying Hunter did nothing wrong, when Hunter’s own laptop proves he did.
  5. Failing to hold GoM O&G leases mandated by law.

Not going to end well for Biden. He is apparently gunning to replace Buchanan or Carter as the worst president ever. He is succeeding, by a wide margin. Or, as Obama said about his VP, ‘Never underestimate Joe’s ability to eff things up.’ The only time Obama was right about anything.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 13, 2023 2:53 pm

When they are flaunting the law, as you correctly point out, I don’t think they would let 1. or 2. stand in their way. SCOTUS is to blame for all of this because of their ruling in Massachusetts vs EPA. Regulating CO2 as a pollutant should have required an act of Congress.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Tom.1
May 13, 2023 4:31 pm

T1, I agree in principle but not as a matter of law. Mass. v. EPA was about whether the EPA had the power to declare CO2 a pollutant, since it had not. Unfortunately, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress made the mistake of defining a pollutant as that which pollutes. Circular. So when IPCC says CO2 is harmful, it follows it pollutes, so follows EPA can define it as a pollutant. The fault lies with Congress in a bad definition. Mass. V EPA was unfortunately correctly decided,

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 13, 2023 5:42 pm

I would just further note that it was a 5-4 decision, so there are apparently grounds for dissent. I dissent.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 13, 2023 5:58 pm

is there any substance which is not harmful at some concentration?
Does common sense have any legal application?
IMO the major problem with our governments is they are mainly comprsed of and overseen by lawyers parsing every sentence for precedents and seeking plausible deniability so they are never held accountable. They write laws in language and punctuation which other lawyers will argue the meaning and intent in front of lawyer judges and then raise the decision to a higher court of lawyers who reach a differnt conclusion.
They know nothing (a good old honest name for a political party) about STEM and rely on “experts” whose “expertise” they are unqualified to evaluate and are easily influenced by “concensus”as they believe in majority opinion (facts be. ..) and compromise – neither of which have any scientific value.
For ever and ever, Amen.
czechlist complete

Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  czechlist
May 13, 2023 7:12 pm

” … There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — — — and you create a nation of law breakers — — — and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system … … … ”

— — Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged

“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions into the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

— — Thomas Sowell

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 13, 2023 10:30 pm

Dihydrogen monoxide is also harmful but I don’t want to give them ideas

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Redge
May 14, 2023 5:08 am

very harmful if you breath it in!

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 14, 2023 5:06 am

harmful and pollute- these words are not synonymous- ergo, the EPA cannot say CO2 is a pollutant- of course it did say so- so there are grounds for further litigation, no?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Tom.1
May 14, 2023 5:03 am

Sure, SCOTUS deserves the blame- but be sure to point to MY state of Massachusetts as a hotbed of this climate craziness. An analysis of why the state has gone bonkers would be useful. If I wasn’t so lazy I’d do it myself. 🙂

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 13, 2023 4:26 pm

‘He is apparently gunning to replace Buchanan or Carter as the worst president ever.’

In my opinion, the worst presidents vastly expanded Federal power and/or dragged the US into senseless wars. I’d put Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson and Bush II way ahead of your nominees.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
May 13, 2023 5:43 pm

No president has been worse than Joe Biden.

And Biden’s first term isn’t even finished yet.

It’s no contest: Joe Biden is the Worst President Ever!

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 13, 2023 8:48 pm

In modern times, that would be correct. All combined Woodrow Wilson is the worst. He is the one who defined rule through executive action. FDR learn it from him and Johnson learned it from FDR. I am not exactly sure where Biden came up with idea but he has always been power hungry and corrupt so it could have been anywhere.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dena
May 14, 2023 4:12 am

Joe Biden is the most destructive, devisive president in history, and his goal appears to be the complete destruction of the United States as we knew it.

Joe Biden said yesterday at an all-black college that the greatest threat to the United States is White Supremacy! You couldn’t fill a football stadium with the number of White Supremacists that are out there, but Biden wants us to be very afraid of White People. Biden wants to divide the nation along racial lines because he and the Democrats think the “divide and conquer” strategy is the way to go. Biden thinks demonizing White People is the path forward.

Everything Joe Biden does is harmful to the United States.

He is a delusional, dangerous, corrupt fool and going by his deliberate failure to enforce U.S. border laws, Joe Biden should be impeached and removed from Office, if we had rational national leaders, which we don’t, because about half of them are irrational Democrats.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 13, 2023 9:51 pm

Who’s worse, the puppet currently being wielded by the deep state, or his predecessors who created the deep state?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
May 14, 2023 4:05 am

I would say they are equally bad for the nation and the world.

michael hart
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 14, 2023 5:51 am

From my selfish point of view I would say Biden is the worst and his chickens mostly haven’t even come home to roost yet.

If I was Iraqi, Afghani, etc, then Bush wins hands down. Directly attributable deaths of innocent people for less than no gain counts for a lot.

And his regime-changers never left power. Having botched every regime change attempted for decades, they have now summoned enough Dutch courage to think it will work on Russia. But Biden gives them free reign. He could yet end up as the worst, and last, President of the United States.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  michael hart
May 15, 2023 2:54 am

I think Biden wins the prize for Afghanistan. He threw 25 million people to the wolves over the objections of all his advisors. The pain he has inflicted on Afghanistan has just begun.

Joe Biden is very good at throwing innocent people to the wolves without batting an eye (Vietnam and Iraq). He portrays himself as being compassionate, but his actions tell a different story.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 14, 2023 7:05 am

Well, there was that time when BHO said his new policies would necessarily cause energy prices to “skyrocket”.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 15, 2023 4:28 am

Did not that laptop have a Russian serial number?

41-easily recognized signatures, unlike the ones on ballots that were counted for Biden and Hobbs anyway, in Arizona.

Hunter Biden left it, on purpose, in the computer store to screw the owner of the store?

Putin must have done it, to warn Biden, ahead of time, not to blow up the pipelines?

The Chinese?
The Iranians?

Tom Halla
May 13, 2023 2:55 pm

Biden is following the George Wallace playbook, and like Kathy Hochul, giving a metaphoric finger to the Supreme Court.

Dan Pangburn
May 13, 2023 3:16 pm

The irony is that curtailing the use of fossil fuels will have no significant effect on climate.
This is a graph of energy flux vs wavenumber. The black body curves are also (given a typical atmosphere) constant altitude curves. Equivalent altitudes for standard atmosphere are given in upper right corner of the graph. The jagged red line below wavenumber 600 is for water vapor. Outward directed radiation from WV from as low as 2 km can make it all the way to space while CO2 does not significantly radiate to space until the tropopause and above. Note that the CO2 radiation follows the BB curve at the tropopause. The radiation from WV radiates to space the energy absorbed by all IR active molecules including WV and CO2 at low altitude. Radiation from CO2 at the tropopause and higher actually counters warming. End result, curtailing the use of fossil fuels will have no significant effect on climate.

TOA with BB (CC & bar).jpg
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
May 13, 2023 10:16 pm

That doesn’t matter. The elite will gladly sacrifice the peasants to appease angry Gaia.

They’re going to find things difficult when there’s no more farms, power, or peasants willing to be sacrificed.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
May 14, 2023 6:01 pm

The irony is that curtailing fossil fuel use, if they get the Chinese and Indians on board the bandwagon, will clear the air of sulfur and particulate pollution causing the world to warm up.

Candy Hall
May 13, 2023 3:22 pm

Let’s just forget these gradual continued attempts to totally ruin our economy and just leap to what will ultimately be the final outcome that the climate crazies are seeking. Just totally prohibit any person or entity from emitting ANYTHING AT ALL into the atmosphere, from any source for any reason. That should do it!

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Candy Hall
May 13, 2023 4:58 pm

Remember the acronym B.A.N.A.N.A. — Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything?

Well, now we have E.A.N.A.F.A. — Emit absolutely nothing anywhere from anything.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 14, 2023 5:11 am

farting will be illegal!

Lee Riffee
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 14, 2023 7:40 am

No, I think it will be legal – but they will just force every living person to pay a fart tax!

Peta of Newark
May 13, 2023 3:40 pm

So the ‘Climate and Health Benefits‘ amount to about $13 per person per year over the 20 year timeframe

two questions:

Compared the $20,000 per year already being spent just for healthcare – are there not bigger healthcare fish to fry?Assuming a 50/50 split: How do you quantify being $6.50 per year healthier and will anyone actually notice the Climate being ‘cleaner’ to the tune of the other $6.50Third question arising: Don’t those trivial amounts suggest there’s not really much of a problem

Wouldn’t the money and ‘innovation’ be better directed at suggesting Coca Cola put 1,000mg of Vitamin C in every 2 litre bottle of their product.
The health benefits of just that would be ‘off the scale’ -especially for the autoimmune disorder ‘Asthma’ that you’re presumably aiming at.
The improvement in the dentistry of the nation, esp for kids, would also be similarly ‘off the scale’

Mary Jones
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 13, 2023 5:18 pm

Good catch.

michael hart
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 14, 2023 6:14 am

Well, yes.
When I read “climate and public health benefits” worth $85 billion over the next two decades”,
I wondered, now, what kind of value is being gained from ~$120 billion spent over one year on a foreign proxy war in Ukraine?

Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 14, 2023 6:05 pm

I’m surprised Coca Cola doesn’t do that already, given the many ‘vitamin water’ drinks and mixes that are out there – but then maybe they want to avoid all the problems they had the last time they fiddled with the formula.

Chris Nisbet
May 13, 2023 3:41 pm

I wish they’d stop describing CO2 as ‘pollution’.
If they described it as (say) ‘necessary for life as we know it’, their plans to wreck the USA energy systems would seem slightly less ‘ambitious’ and slightly more murderous.

Reply to  Chris Nisbet
May 13, 2023 6:36 pm

CO2 is a pollutant, in much the same way as H2O is a pollutant.

May 13, 2023 3:50 pm

How is public health improved by sweltering in the summer and freezing in the winter?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Shoki
May 13, 2023 4:22 pm


Which is what we’ll be doing without a reliable electric grid and reliable transportation.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 13, 2023 6:37 pm

And fertilizer!

Reply to  Shoki
May 14, 2023 7:21 am

When all the folks intolerant of extreme heat or cold expire, the average of the remaining healthy ones would show an improving health curve.

Reply to  barryjo
May 14, 2023 6:09 pm

And since those remaining hardy ones would also be thinner from the starvation following the collapse of modern farming, their average BMI index would be much healthier than the current population, so yes they should have an improved health curve, if food and safe water are somehow not factors.

May 13, 2023 3:54 pm

Joe Biden, the working class hero. Implementing Agenda 21, WEF agendas and getting 10% of all the deals his family makes with foreign agents as fast as he can.

May 13, 2023 4:00 pm

Instead of just sitting there taking a death of 1,000 cuts from gang-green.
The coal and gas-fueled power plants should move to ‘net zero’ NOW, by switching off for 2 months “to reduce the harmful pollution that threatens people’s health and wellbeing,”
Factory’s would have to close, shops would empty, people would have to sit in the dark ( see how many people will agree with ‘net zero’ once they’ve had a small taste of it ), the political backlash would see the end of all this nonsense in short order.

Small term pain for long term gain.

J Boles
May 13, 2023 4:38 pm

Okay, first turn off the electricity to Washington DC and see if they have a change of heart about C02

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J Boles
May 13, 2023 5:47 pm

Turn in off in Deleware, too.

And send all the illegal immigrants to Deleware, too. The Big Guy is their buddy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 15, 2023 2:57 am

I see where Governor Abbott is sending more illegal immigrants to Washington DC, and the vice president’s residence.

Deleware would be a very good destination for the illegal immigrants. Let the people of Biden’s State deal with Biden’s refusal to defend the U.S. border. It’s time to get Biden’s neighbors riled up a little bit over Biden’s failure to protect the U.S. from invasion.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  J Boles
May 13, 2023 8:38 pm

G’Day J,

Okay, first turn off the electricity to Washington DC…”

What’s the bet that government buildings have backup diesel generators?

Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
May 14, 2023 2:00 am

“What’s the bet that government buildings have backup diesel generators?”

& hospitals, water supply, sewage plants, oil refinery’s ….
so basic infrastructure will still function but millions of people will learn the hard lesson
‘We do need a stable energy supply’ ;

but we don’t need ignorant political zealots of any kind ( left/right, red/blue ) , they are the ones who’ve put us in this mess (& made fortunes on the way).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  1saveenergy
May 14, 2023 4:15 am

Name a rightwing zealot that has put us in this mess.

Name a rightwing zealot.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 14, 2023 7:25 am

silence equals acquiesense.

Reply to  barryjo
May 14, 2023 6:13 pm

Very strong point – the centre wing politicians (there’s no such thing as a right-wing politician anymore – and even the Nazis were socialists) have given up challenging the narrative in the face of corrupt scientists and political hack/alarmist journalists.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  1saveenergy
May 14, 2023 9:12 am

G’Day 1saveenergy,

“& hospitals, water supply, sewage plants, oil refinery’s…”

… along with fire stations, and heck, even traffic lights. However, I don’t regard government buildings housing politians and/or bureaucrats as being ‘essential’. It’s those occupants who need to feel the effect of ‘no power’.

(Spent a summer some years ago in a Westinghouse nuclear storage facility, working building maintenance. The backup generator was checked weekly. As an ‘aside’, they were licensed for less nuclear material than the local hospital.)

May 13, 2023 5:42 pm

None of this has ever been about climate change. Those using the fraud of runaway anthropogenic climate change to fear monger couldn’t care less about climate. They fully understand their “solutions” will never be fully implemented, won’t work even if they are, won’t decrease global warming by even 1/100 of a degree and won’t save the planet. Climate change is just one of the weapons they are using to achieve their goals. It’s up to a majority of Americans to wake up and say No. Until that happens this idiocy will continue.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Karhu
May 14, 2023 4:17 am

“It’s up to a majority of Americans to wake up and say No. Until that happens this idiocy will continue.”

That’s exactly right. It is about time rational Americans took to the streets to non-violently protest Biden’s stupidity and destructive policies.

Edward Katz
May 13, 2023 6:29 pm

If the emissions produced by all the sources the Biden administration maintains are so detrimental to the health of Americans, why is it that the US population continues to increase? Also if global emissions are so serious, why has the Earth’s population more than doubled from 3.7 billion around 1970 to 8 billion today. Along with that increase, life expectancy during that period has risen from 57 years to 73, while agricultural output has tripled. It seems likely that those so determined to reduce these emissions are barking up the wrong tree by making ordinary citizens worldwide accept higher prices and lower living standards in the vain hope that they can change the planet’s climate. Let’s hope that the Republicans can at least gain control of Congress in the 2024 elections and apply the brakes to such irresponsible pipe dreams.

Reply to  Edward Katz
May 14, 2023 7:37 pm

But the Republicans have mostly been brainwashed by the green moonies and the ones who haven’t are terrified of the media.

John Oliver
May 13, 2023 7:05 pm

As others here have pointed out- this is not just a matter of a rogue administration and agency’s. It is a break down of the constitutional republic in the most serious of ways. The Biden administration and the agency’s would be stopped if enough of a majority in congress would uphold their sworn oaths to defend protect and uphold the US constitution and all other laws of the land( not just on this issue but many many others).
So we have a much bigger problem than just technical aspects of administrative law. This is about as close as we have come to the break down of the republic since the civil war.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  John Oliver
May 13, 2023 9:57 pm

Rome managed to muddle along for several centuries after the end of the republic, but it was not pretty near the end.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
May 14, 2023 4:38 am

Today is nothing like Rome.

The Dictators of the United States have much more capability to suppress the ordinary citizens.

One more bad election cycle might just tip us over the totalitarian cliff. We don’t have hundreds of years to work all this out. We have 2024.

Those who value their freedoms better vote Republican, even if they have to hold their nose to do so, because the alternative is MUCH worse.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Oliver
May 14, 2023 4:25 am

“This is about as close as we have come to the break down of the republic since the civil war.”

Yes, it is, and that’s why I call Joe Biden the worst president ever, because he is destroying our constitutional protections, or at least, he is trying to do so. Biden has also weaponized the federal government against his political enemies. One of the first things a dictatorial State does to consolidate its political power.

We have a Petty Dictator in the White House, and along with the Deep State, they pose an existential threat to the United States of America and to the personal freedoms of all of us, of all political parties. If you are not a Democrat Elite, in the New World Order, it won’t matter what political party you belong to, you will still be a peon, and will be expected to obey.

Americans better wake up to this fact. And soon.

May 14, 2023 6:25 am

They are on a time line. They have a year and a half to destroy the fossil fuel industry before their agency is gutted by the new administration.

Laws can be reversed with a pen, it’s harder to restore demolished coal plants, or restart coal mines when the owners have no reason to trust the government.

May 14, 2023 3:16 pm

I’m still waiting for them to produce any actual evidence that PM2.5 is a problem.

George Daddis
Reply to  MarkW
May 15, 2023 7:14 am

Agreed. The NLT rule of thumb is not proof.

May 14, 2023 8:54 pm

This sort of debate comes from focusing on trivial temperature effects, rather than on the fact that CARBON IS THE BASIS OF LIFE, “Organic Chemistry” is carbon chemistry, and photosynthesis is the foundation of food. Plant life, herbivore food, animal food, human food. All life. The carbon cycle allows life to continue indefinitely, while burning fossil fuels (or abiotic carbon fuels, as may be) allows us to increase the carrying capacity of Mother Earth for Life. Ask an antil-fossil greenie why s/he opposes the flourishing of life? What is so terrible about increasing the carrying capacity of Earth for all forms of life?
Coal releases mercury into the environment. I had once thought coal was old forests, but it turns out that coal is a highly porous rock filled with oil. So the mercury is a new poison that the biosphere has not coped with before.
There may be real issues about oil or gas, but we cannot begin to address them while focusing on the temperature. The enemy will focus on temperature without our permission, but we must stop being suckered into putting that first. We must stop letting enemies of life control the battlefield.

George Daddis
May 15, 2023 7:02 am

Surely there is enough actual data and basic research to trash the infamous “No Lower Threshold” standard that is used to justify supposed health benefits in this and many other instances.

It is my understanding that this was a “better safe than sorry” rule of thumb devised during atomic bomb testing. It is now used to justify everything from the subject government regulation to financial appeals from “charitable” health organizations. As often asked on this site “where are the bodies?”.

Our every day experience is proof that some substances can be fatal to us in large amounts but safe (like sodium chloride or H2O), or even required (like some rare earth elements) in small amounts.

Verified by MonsterInsights