President Trump’s first week marked a significant shift in U.S. climate and energy policy. His administration prioritized energy independence, rolled back burdensome regulations, and withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, citing disproportionate costs to the American economy. Among his most consequential moves was rolling back Obama-era climate policies that were rooted in the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Trump’s executive actions highlighted the urgent need to revisit and rescind that Endangerment Finding. This 2009 EPA edict underpins much of the federal government’s sweeping climate agenda, driving regulations that increase costs for consumers, harm industries, and expand government overreach into nearly every aspect of life.
The Endangerment Finding, classified carbon dioxide (CO₂) and five other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This allowed the EPA to regulate these gases despite the fact that the Clean Air Act was originally intended to address harmful pollutants like smog, soot, and sulfur dioxide—substances with direct and immediate health impacts.
Carbon dioxide, however, is neither toxic nor harmful at current atmospheric levels. It is a naturally occurring gas, essential to life on Earth, and plays a vital role in plant growth and food production. By declaring CO₂ a pollutant, the EPA dramatically expanded its regulatory reach. This finding set the stage for far-reaching mandates on power plants, vehicles, appliances, and more, giving the federal government a license to micromanage industries and individual choices alike.
CO₂ has been unjustly vilified in the political and media narrative surrounding climate change. While it is true that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, its role in the climate system is far from simple or all-encompassing. For instance, water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas in terms of its warming potential, accounting for roughly half of it due to its abundance in the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gases, yet it is rarely discussed because it is beyond the scope of regulation.
The Endangerment Finding has triggered a cascade of regulations with far-reaching and often harmful consequences for industries, consumers, and the broader economy.
- Energy Costs and Reliability:
Regulations targeting coal and natural gas power plants have forced many reliable energy sources offline, driving up electricity costs for consumers. Affordable, dependable energy is a cornerstone of economic growth, yet these regulations undermine it. - Transportation:
Vehicle emissions standards linked to the finding have raised car prices and accelerated the push for electric vehicles (EVs). Consumers are left with fewer choices and higher costs, all in the name of reducing CO₂ emissions. - Housing and Appliances:
Energy efficiency mandates stemming from the finding have increased costs for home construction and everyday appliances like refrigerators, water heaters, and air conditioners. These mandates often result in products that are less effective or less durable, burdening households with higher costs for questionable benefits. - Agriculture and Food Prices:
Farmers are now under pressure to reduce emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, two other greenhouse gases identified in the Endangerment Finding. These regulations drive up farming costs, which are inevitably passed on to consumers. This has serious implications for food security and affordability. - Erosion of Individual Freedoms:
The Endangerment Finding enables the federal government to intrude into everyday decisions, from the kind of car you drive to the appliances you use to how you heat your home. What were once personal choices are increasingly dictated by federal mandates, all justified by the need to reduce emissions.
The unintended consequences of this EPA overreach hurts average Americans.
One of the greatest flaws of the Endangerment Finding is its tunnel vision. By focusing almost exclusively on CO₂, it ignores the broader environmental picture.
Similarly, the push for renewable energy has downsides that are often overlooked. Wind and solar energy require vast amounts of land, disrupt ecosystems, and rely on mining rare materials that cause significant environmental damage. Meanwhile, the policies driven by the Endangerment Finding disproportionately harm low-income households, who are least able to absorb rising energy and food costs.
The Endangerment Finding must be rescinded – it’s out of step with American values.
President Trump’s rollback of climate policies highlighted the dangers of the Endangerment Finding but did not go far enough. To truly safeguard America’s energy independence, economic growth, and individual freedoms, the Endangerment Finding must be rescinded. Its foundation is shaky—built on exaggerated claims about CO₂ and a misinterpretation of climate science. Eliminating it would free industries from burdensome regulations, lower costs for consumers, and restore balance to environmental policymaking.
Rescinding the finding would not mean abandoning environmental stewardship. Instead, it would allow for a more rational approach to climate and energy policy—one that respects scientific complexity, avoids alarmism, and considers the real-world consequences of overreach. A balanced policy would prioritize innovation, voluntary efforts, and adaptation over heavy-handed mandates.
The EPA’s Endangerment Finding, better understood as the “Carbon Scare Framework,” represents a gross overreach of regulatory authority. By declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant, the federal government has imposed costly and far-reaching rules that affect every aspect of life, often to the detriment of the economy, individual freedoms, and even the environment itself.
The path forward begins with rescinding the Endangerment Finding and reevaluating the role of CO₂ in climate policy. America needs a balanced, evidence-based approach—one that prioritizes innovation, economic freedom, and environmental stewardship without succumbing to alarmism or ideological agendas. If policymakers are serious about addressing real challenges, it’s time to step away from the carbon scare narrative and toward rational, practical solutions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
EPA needs to get real on CO2.
What the CO2 finding should say is that…
CO2 fuels the natural biosphere.
You had a thumbs down so I cut it off. 🙂
Oh , and…
Who the hell downvoted this truism?
Someone who thinks bnice isn’t.
‘rational, practical solutions’ – ??? Solutions just what, exactly?
More Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Oil and zero subsidies for solar and wind.
They have some new designs for nuclear that are much safer and won’t meltdown, China has one design that has been tested and a company in the US has a similar design. Many of the coal plants have been demolished in the west so that isn’t likely to come back anytime soon. Oil and gas are doing well as it is, the companies don’t want more because that will cut into to profits.
This is the US company’s design that is similar to the tested Chinese design:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/x-energy-developing-pebble-bed-reactor-they-say-cant-melt-down
This is China’s design:
https://www.ans.org/news/article-6241/china-pebblebed-reactor-passes-meltdown-test/
These are other designs:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-advanced-reactor-designs-watch-2030
I believe South Africa has a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) design before they were culturally diversified.
Nah….what really happened is that when the government changed in 1994 there was a serous worry that the very capable South African scientists who built neutron bombs, at least 6 of which were functional at that time, could have wandered away into the world with their knapsacks in tow, if they were not kept occupied.
So the story spread that they had found a way to make the “pebbles” in a viable manner that was hush-hush. This gave the world the cover story that RSA would make the system viable, which of course never happened.
But it did keep the scientists employed and busy until they earned their pensions. After that was accomplished, lo and behold, the encapsulated pebbles were never going to last in those conditions and the funding was cut off.
The purpose was to protect some rogue state from getting viable nuclear bombs. Now, compare that with what happened in North Korea. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, all the scientists in bomb development were out of work. About 40 of them dribble slowly into N Korea with their knapsacks in tow, and started the NK nuclear bomb and rocket building process. They secured from Russia old, out of date ICBMs they they know how to design and build. This forms the backbone of the NK rocket program. It is not run by natives. They are Russians.
NK is an example of what happens if you let a mere 40 experts move to a country determined to get the bomb. South Africa avoided that. But there was never going to be a pebble bed reactor that worked. The Germans looked at it in great detail in the 80’s and concluded it could never work. After their careers were over, the South Africans concluded the same.
What is being solved?
It’s just the beginning of the process to solve the problem caused by the climate emergency nonsense. It’ll take time.
Yes, that’s the real problem.
Exactly. There IS NO PROBLEM from CO2 that needs “solutions.” Better protections, yes, in any case, against floods, fires, storms, etc. But those problems are not new.
Lawyer Francis Menton had a recent WUWT post on how this could be done while withstanding the inevitable legal challenges. Well worth reading. Involves invoking both Loper Bright (repealed Chevron deference) and WV v EPA (major questions doctrine).
A more direct route would be an overwhelming 2026 Congressional win based on 47 successes (looking good so far) and then amending the CAA definition of a pollutant.
EPA’s ruling should state that no gas that is vital for life on earth can be marked as dangerous. We EXHALE it for pete’s sake!
We humans exhale ca. 8 billions pounds of CO2 everyday. To that should be added all the CO2 exhaled by all the plants and by wild and domestic animals. Then there CO2 from wildfires, volcanoes, seeps from the oceans floors, and from rotting vegetation. Baking of bread and brewing of beer and wine release more CO2.
Despite all these sources of CO2, the concentration of it in air is quite low ca. 0.8 g per cubic meter of air. Where does all CO2 go? Most goes into oceans. Alga and aquatic plants fix lots of CO2. Animals eat these plants. Since the pH of the oceans is 8.2, the CO2 is converted bicarbonate anion which used to make shells of clams, scallops, starfish and snails There many species of microorganisms which bicarbonate to form the skeletons.
We really do not have to worry about CO2.
Another way of saying it is that there is one CO2 molecule for every 2400 non-CO2 molecules in our atmosphere. Anyone that is afraid of that simply has no common sense. But who ever said the EPA had to make sense? Their point was simply that they couldn’t write laws against CO2 unless there was an endangerment finding, which they did. And we see the result: trillions of the world’s wealth wasted tilting at windmills.
Did the EPA ever say how CO2 “endangers human health and welfare”.
The ruling is available for reading, if you look for it. But basically, it is the usual political bafflegab that they all seem to understand. Would that they understood science as well.
My understanding is that humans exhale 2 pounds of CO2 per day, at the current population that 16 billion pounds per day.
One of the best books on pollution while limited to mostly freshwater covers what should be their required reading with chapters covering what is important everywhere. Apparently never reprinted you can still see it a lot with a search. These were replaced in the 80s with various environmental biology and such books which while full of information were too political but more popular. I often used Warren in a class and was one of the few books I loaned to a student and didn’t get back but managed to get another.
It distinguishes the meanings of contamination, pollution, and nuisance, diminishing irregularly in their relevance. Pollution in the middle has the largest sliding scale so to speak but contamination is urgent, pollution degrades the environment and obviously nuisance is a category used along those with little tolerance. More detail there of course, but this came originally from California law when actions were often needed and was used more widely within quality standards. Definitions matter and we are using them wrong.
Warren, C. E. 1971. Biology and Water Pollution Control. W. B. Saunders. 434p.
I his article is completely wrong. It would have been correct in 2021, and even in the first half of 2022.
The Endangerment Finding was completely replaced by the Inflation Reduction Act in Augusts 2022. The IRA did not directly say CO2 was a pollutant. It said greenhouse GASES WERE POLLUTANTS. AND THEN LISTED SEVERAL OF THEM. CO2 WAS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE BUT METHANE GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION TOO.
It is stupid to call greenhouse gasses pollutants. But the IRA would not be the first stupid law passed by Congress.
The IRA was passed with 51 votes in the Senate. It can be cancelled with 51 votes too.
But I doubt if there are enough votes in the House. 18 Republican Congressmen want the IRA alternative energy tax credits for their states.
On August 12, 2022, the IRA was passed by the House on a 220–207 vote
Now there are 217 Republicans.an 215 Democrats. Three special elections are ahead. All expected to be Republica so it should be 221 Republicans versus 215 Democrats.
If 3 Republicans pit of those 18 (from last summer) do not want to repeal the IRA in April, it does not get repealed.
Of course Tyrant Trump will probably ignore Congress and the Constitution, and just impound the IRA budgeted funds, like a true tyrant. And his Republican cheerleaders will say: We like a tyrant who does what WE want done. Who cares about Congress or courts?
The IRA has nothing to do with inflation. It does not increase inflation or reduce inflation.
The year over year CPI inflation rate has declined by 68% from June 2022 through December 2024 (9.1% to 2.9%). The IRA was passed in August 2022. It did not cause the reduction of the inflation rate. Fed monetary policy did that.
“like a true tyrant”
There you go again- exaggerating- a true tyrant does things far nastier.
So far, Trump is doing exactly what the people voted for him to do.
That is the very opposite of tyranny !
Richard makes an excellent point, that the authority to regulate CO2 was codified into law by the IRA. I did not know that and many of our allies don’t either.
It is also true that Trump has crossed some dubious lines. I strongly support Trump’s actions and hope the legal challenges fall his way, but he may lose a constitutional battle or two. His EO forbidding skinny jeans on adult males may get overturned by SCOTUS.
“His EO forbidding skinny jeans on adult males may get overturned by SCOTUS.”
I hope not. Skinny jeans make guys look like they are wearing clown shoes. 🙂
‘Richard makes an excellent point, that the authority to regulate CO2 was codified into law by the IRA.’
Maybe, but perhaps Francis Menton made a better point:
‘Also, note that the IRA was a so-called “reconciliation” bill that was able to clear the Senate with only 51 votes (one of which was a tie-breaker from VP Harris) only because it was not allowed to contain anything but financial and budgetary provisions. Thus an amendment to the Clean Air Act to give EPA explicit new authority to regulate the six GHGs would clearly have been non-germane and not allowed into the statute.’
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-1-26-how-to-rescind-the-endangerment-finding-in-a-way-that-will-stick
“His EO forbidding skinny jeans on adult males……. “
Fact Check: Did Donald Trump sign executive order banning ‘grown men’ from wearing skinny jeans? – MEAWW News
Except it doesn’t exist !
….. but others might. 😉
I knew it was a joke when I read it, but Trump really ought to issue such an EO as skinny jeans look really silly.
Trump doesn’t want his negotiators wearing skinny jeans. Trump wants our opponents to take us seriously, and it’s hard to take someone who is wearing skinny jeans seriously.
Dems will now start wearing skinny jeans , like they were wearing face masks in 2021
It is also true that Trump has crossed some dubious lines.
I haven’t kept up with all the EO’s but I have gotten the impression that he’s intentionally pushing things in order to provoke the legal review. Get a SCOTUS ruling on things, or force congressional action, so that it’s definitive.
I think you are correct.
Your analysis is backward. The IRA used the endangerment finding to call CO2 a pollutant. It isn’t necessary, once the endangerment finding is in place, to explicably refer to it.
Richard thinks Republicans will let Trump get away with murder, but one of Trump’s decisions, to fire most of the current Inspector Generals for the Executive Branch got a strong rebuke from Republican U.S. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley said Trump can’t fire the Inspector Generals without giving Congress 30 days notice and Trump didn’t give them 30 days notice and Senator Grassley wants to know why.
This is just a minor breaking of the rules, but as you can see, even Trump is not going to be allowed to break rules, even minor rules, without Republicans complaining about it, and I’m pretty sure if Trump were to break some serious rules, he would lose some serious support from a lot of Republicans. Republicans are kind of finicky about the breaking of rules, even if it is one of their own doing it.
I think Trump will operate within the law. He has no need or reason not to.
Tom: You should check out Francis Menton’s post on the SCOTUS Humphrey’s-Executor decision over at Manhattan Contrarian. It’s what allowed congress to place unconstitutional limits on the presidents authority to fire Excec. branch employees. Very likely to be overturned if litigation takes it to the current court.
I think Trump does a lot of things just to get them into Court. I think the firing of Inspectors General may be just such a gambit.
Trump didn’t fire all the Inspectors General. He left the Department of Justice Inspector General in place, for one. That Inspector General actually does his job to Trump’s satisfaction.
Trump also fired five Inspectors General in his last year in office, in 2020. I don’t know if he gave Congress 30 days notice on those firings. I didn’t hear any Republicans complaining then, so maybe he did.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-federal-inspectors-general-fired/
Can he restrict access to their offices and order them to stop work, without firing them? (actual question)
I’m guessing the action was to prevent the possibility of “lost” records.
The Endangerment Finding of 2009 should be withdrawn primarily because it relies on the unsound attribution of reported warming to CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. The negative consequences of the EF are notable, as this post explains very well. But the core claim – that emissions of those non-condensing gases should be expected to drive the climate system to a harmful outcome – was based on a misconception from the start.
What misconception? That the static radiative effect of incremental CO2 must produce a “warming” result – i.e., that the energy involved in the so-called longwave “forcing” must end up accumulating on land and in the oceans as sensible heat gain. No one ever knew that, and there remains no way to isolate the effect for reliable attribution of the reported temperature trend.
There is an inconsistency in the EF itself that should be pointed out:
“Direct anthropogenic emissions of water vapor, in general, have a negligible effect and are thus not considered a primary driver of human-induced climate change.”
( source https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/12/15/E9-29537/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-for-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a-of-the-clean )
Why inconsistent? The reason massive emissions of water vapor from human activity have a negligible effect in respect to warming, is that the general circulation and the prevalence of convective weather assure that water vapor cannot be made to accumulate in the atmosphere through its own radiative effect. In other words, precipitation induced by the dynamics obviously keeps that from happening. Yet the “harmful” part of the claimed “warming” from incremental CO2 is not through its direct static radiative effect, but through amplification by water vapor feedback! This is a glaring physical contradiction. And if emissions of water vapor cannot cause sensible heat to accumulate in the circulating atmosphere through its own radiative effect, then neither can the non-condensing gases! The overwhelming presence of water vapor, clouds, and precipitation make it obvious that sensible heat itself cannot be made to accumulate in the atmosphere in any case through the longwave effects. The bottom line is that incremental CO2 is harmless in respect to “warming” for the same reasons that massive emissions of water vapor are acknowledged to be harmless.
There. I needed to vent for a bit. Please carry on.
The “positive water feedback” proposal is nonsense. 71% of the earth’s surface is covered by H2O, and it does not any help from CO2. A few days ago, Roy Clark posted an article on how the wind is a major force for transporting H2O from the surface of water in to the air.
Anyone using the expression “positive feedback” needs to take Systems Engineering 101, specifically control theory.
Clearly, Political “Scientists” should stay far from any laws dealing with technology.
EPA has to use a “new findings” argument and the best is that no bad trends in weather are found. Plus models are excluded as not observations.
Suppose there was some equivalent finding about lead during the growing Roman Empire. According to modern science, such a claim would be entirely true but out of step with Roman values. Lead was the only material so easily worked with and so widely available for their plumbing system.
The questions about CO2 etc. are not related to “American values”, they are related to objective truth. Humans are unable to increase the Atmospheric concentrations enough for them to be relevant to public health or anything else that is happening today.
Congress should add to The Clean Air Act language that makes it clear that CO2 and methane emissions can NOT be regulated by the Act
Seems extremely unlikely to happen. Are restrictions to future legislation or rule making ever put into legislation? That seems very unlikely. No one can know what might be necessary some day.
sorry anthony. there was nothing unintended about it.
Well, the ball is on Lee Zeldin’s side of the court. Let’s hope he does something about it.
Yeah, just like he pulled out last time: by giving 4y notice. It took Dementia Joe ONE DAY to sign US back in when they rigged the 2020 results. Withdrawing like that was a meaningless gesture.
What he needs to do it pull out of the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCCP). That only has a one year notice clause and will pull the rug on the entire climate scam.
Rud Estvan claims to have pointed this out to the Trump team last time but apparently was ignored.
The EPA was created to cleanup America’s air and water pollution, and that was an admirable goal. The problem is once they achieved their initial goals they didn’t stop. With the help of Congress the goals were further tightened, and EPA’s control expanded into new areas, and thus the EPA has become the monstrosity it is today.
Nice write up!
The only “Greenhouse Gasses” exist only in a physical greenhouse. The earth’s energy system is not a greenhouse.