Time to Stop Endangerment of Developing Economies With CO2 Regulation

By Vijay Jayaraj

Imagine the irony of labeling a substance as “hazardous” only to discover that the true peril lies not in the substance but in the act of its vilification. That is the case with carbon dioxide (CO₂) and how it has been mischaracterized to establish globally suicidal energy policies.

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Endangerment Finding that declared as a pollutant CO₂ – two pounds of which each of us exhales daily. It laid the bureaucratic groundwork for far-reaching regulations aimed at eliminating the use of fossil fuels, an objective contrary to the societal goods of reliable energy supplies and prosperity.

Holding CO₂ as the dominant factor in a “dangerous” rise in global temperatures in recent decades, the Endangerment Finding transformed without a scientific basis a trace atmospheric gas – essential for photosynthesis and agricultural productivity – into an object of state-sanctioned hostility.

This regulatory corruption marked the beginning of what can only be described as the weaponization of environmental governance against energy systems based on coal, oil and natural gas, which have lifted billions out of poverty since the 19th century.

However, a July U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) study titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” countered this nonsense. Written by a team of independent scientists with diverse backgrounds, the document states that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.”

Following this comprehensive analysis, EPA Secretary Lee Zeldin proposed that his agency rescind the Endangerment Finding. For anyone following the news, it is already evident that the current U.S. administration has changed the trajectory of energy policy by ditching the destructive anti-fossil fuel stance of the preceding Biden regime. Repeal of the Endangerment Finding could be the death blow for a “green” mania that has cost the world trillions of dollars for no benefit.

The question for developing nations is whether their governments will keep tolerating the CO₂ hysteria that’s choking domestic economies like a boa constrictor. How much longer will poorer countries suffer under climate policies crafted in U.N. offices and imposed on villages without electricity?

Green energy vehicles – like the Paris Agreement and net zero targets – have been promoted in the name of climate virtue but have sabotaged growth, stalled industrial progress and punished the poor. From the reckless scuttling of projects for developing fossil fuel supplies to the puppet-like behavior of lawmakers reciting policies scripted by the United Nations and World Economic Forum, the fingerprints of the green agenda are everywhere.

Among projects that have suffered at the hands of anti-hydrocarbon crusaders are a 1,445-kilometer pipeline to transport crude oil from Uganda to Tanzania, two South African offshore natural gas exploration blocks, a 700-megawatt coal plant in Kenya and a $20 billion liquefied natural gas project in Mozambique.

The price of climate regulations is ruinous. As the DOE report says, the exorbitant costs associated with policies like electric vehicle mandates, renewable energy targets and rules for home appliances drastically exceed even the bogusly inflated “Social Cost of Carbon,” which is promoted by the climate industrial complex as part of its pseudoscience. Green programs are an embarrassing failure of any rational cost-benefit analysis.

With regard to actual pollution in the Third World, the DOE’s latest climate assessment makes a long-overdue distinction that mainstream media and bureaucrats have ignored for years. It rightly points out that CO₂ is not a pollutant in the traditional, legally defined sense: “CO₂ differs in many ways from the so-called Criteria Air Pollutants. It does not affect local air quality and has no human toxicological implications at ambient levels.”

Now is the time for policymakers in developing economies to stop treating plant food as public enemy number one so that their societies can take advantage of energy resources that make economic – and environmental – sense.

Their economies can wait no longer to rescind CO2-driven restrictions on energy production and use, for they do not have the buffer of affluence enjoyed by wealthier nations. The negative effects of anti-fossil fuel policies are already obvious, and change is required to avoid more damage.

This commentary was first published by Townhall on August 16, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

5 11 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

66 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neil Pryke
August 20, 2025 2:05 am

Throw common sense and science out of the window…like the globalists have done with healthcare…

strativarius
Reply to  Neil Pryke
August 20, 2025 3:20 am

It’s always political in the end

When SAGE [Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies] observed the “innovative intervention” out of China, of locking entire communities down and not permitting them to leave their homes, they initially presumed it would not be an available option in a liberal Western democracy:
It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.
– Professor Neil Ferguson, The Times

And they got a real taste for it, too.

twofeathersuk
Reply to  strativarius
August 20, 2025 5:13 am

No it wasn’t political – it saved millions of lives. All Neil Ferguson is doing is stating the sequence because as usual the powers that be underestimated the general public. Are you saying Boris Johnson was a communist fifth columnist now? Lockdown worked (in the main) because the vast majority of the public supported it and could see how it was beneficial to society as a whole at that time. I can see how a group of vested interests could be sh*t-scared that, given the right information of the massive harms produced by burning FFs, the public could mass mobilize to eradicate them from the economy. Hence the COVID response and successes (there was massive incompetence and massive failures too) have to be rewritten based on bad facts and bad science just like AGW. “Your freedom to swing your fists around ends at my face”.

strativarius
Reply to  twofeathersuk
August 20, 2025 5:18 am

You are funny.

A great parody act.

Reply to  twofeathersuk
August 20, 2025 7:13 am

There is no climate crisis so nothing wrong with burning more fossil fuel to help increase the CO2 level to grow more food. The governments response to covid was insane for a virus that, for people under 80 years old, had a 99.8% recovery rate. If anything the government response killed more people than it helped.

Mr.
Reply to  twofeathersuk
August 20, 2025 8:24 am

it saved millions of lives

it saved ruined millions of lives

Fixed it for ya!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  twofeathersuk
August 20, 2025 12:49 pm

massive harms produced by burning FFs

Too busy laughing to even address your Covid nonsense.

paul courtney
Reply to  twofeathersuk
August 20, 2025 1:47 pm

Mr. suk: “Lockdown worked” compared to what?? Blinding yourself to obvious fact that non-lockdown worked better gets you there, I suppose. If you can’t prove a single life was saved, claim a million lives saved, that’ll fool us!! You’ve been trying the scare tactic for a few decades, why is the vast majority of folks aren’t scared of FF?
Please answer, I haven’t blown up a troll all day!

Reply to  twofeathersuk
August 20, 2025 2:00 pm

 based on bad facts and bad science just like AGW.”

Hmm…great description of the basis of AGW.

Johnson’s wife most definitely was a communist…. and she held him by his Johnson.

sherro01
Reply to  strativarius
August 20, 2025 7:17 am

For the not-so-safe and not-so -effective modified living liquid rebranded as “vaccine” and pumped with lack of informed consent into the arms of half the global people population …
Oh heck, say it straight and read the 2025 new book from Australia’s Halstead Press “Covid Through Our Eyes”, principal Authors Prof Robert Clancy and Dr Melissa McCann. I have just bought a copy and am a quarter way through. Strongly recommended reading, simply because it is scientifically accurate when the interests pushing RNA brews have not been. Geoff S

strativarius
Reply to  sherro01
August 20, 2025 7:27 am

The real tragedy is what they did to the children by locking down for no good reason.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  sherro01
August 20, 2025 12:50 pm

I find it fascinating that the MRNA vaccines were so good we had to go back time and time again for a booster.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 20, 2025 3:44 pm

I wonder how many jabs twofeathers has had.

That must really suk, thinking your life is dependant of an ever increasing number of “booster” jabs.

Would probably lead to severe mental issues !

Scissor
Reply to  Neil Pryke
August 20, 2025 4:08 am

Vilifying CO2 and exonerating crime are two 20th century ideas who time has come to be put to bed.

sherro01
Reply to  Scissor
August 20, 2025 7:19 am

Next, they will want to do away with police forces.
Geoff S

strativarius
Reply to  sherro01
August 20, 2025 7:41 am

Or defund them…

August 20, 2025 2:15 am

Vijay, could ask some of colleagues in India how they decided that CO2 is a harmless gas and is no threat to humans health and welfare?
You could post the results here.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
August 20, 2025 3:00 am

Harold,
Perhaps someone, anyone, could publish here how or why they decided that CO2 is not a harmless gas and is indeed a truly terrifying thing.

strativarius
Reply to  Oldseadog
August 20, 2025 3:25 am

To my knowledge the only time CO2 presents a danger is in industries like brewing where a leak, for example, could allow a build up – it’s heavier than air…

A technician at the former Scottish Courage Brewery who died after being overcome by carbon dioxide was carrying out a routine procedure, a court heard.”
https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/carbon-dioxide-killed-brewery-worker-4218086

Enter the Health and Safety Executive…

Reply to  strativarius
August 20, 2025 4:51 am

I read the article but it does not provide details of the concentration level. Based on this link, co2 levels in submarines can reach levels of over 11,000 ppm. This link also provides a lot of detail on effects at various levels of concentration and it appears that to cause death, levels have to be very high. The 2nd link is for a study for submariners at 600, 2500, and 15,000 ppm. My guess is that fitness level and age play a role in how individuals are affected by higher levels of co2, but it appears co2 levels still have to reach levels at least double or more of what they are today to have any measurable effect.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11170/chapter/5#47

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29789085/

strativarius
Reply to  Barnes Moore
August 20, 2025 5:07 am

Fermentation produces Carbon dioxide. In a confined space – a tank room – that can rapidly build up way beyond that of a submarine. But then, there are also tanks of pure CO2 for gassing etc, too. At high concentrations, it has been shown to cause unconsciousness almost instantaneously and respiratory arrest within 1 min. At least it’s quick.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  strativarius
August 20, 2025 12:51 pm

There have been cases of large CO2 emissions from natural sources catching people off guard.

MarkW
Reply to  Harold Pierce
August 20, 2025 6:21 am

Both science and history would be a good place to start. Since there has never been any evidence to support the belief that CO2 is harmful.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MarkW
August 20, 2025 12:52 pm

It is in concentrations equivalent to trying to breathe water (aka drowning).

Mikko Paunio
August 20, 2025 2:42 am

This is the worst crime of the WEF/UN gnostic crowd against developing countries, as this prevents developing countries from experiencing the same public health miracle which took place in the OECD countries in the 19th and 20th Centuries i.e. eradication of under nutrition, which made us one head taller, increased dramatically our longetivity and improved our cognitive abilities. https://oikeamedia.com/o1-219300

Mikko Paunio
August 20, 2025 2:47 am

This same regulation created by the gnostic clowns of the WEF and the UN made European Union into a green hellhole. https://oikeamedia.com/o1-219300

strativarius
Reply to  Mikko Paunio
August 20, 2025 3:48 am

I happen to have a copy of The Secret Doctrine (Blavatsky, 1888) on my bookshelf. It’s a very dense read. And it is in many ways barking.

As most should know, Theosophy is… a religious movement started by our Helena in the US.

strativarius
August 20, 2025 3:03 am

stop treating plant food as public enemy number one 

And yet the entire climate industrial edifice is predicated upon just that. You could say that until January of this year, Biden’s White House was the global leader in the charge. How times change – in some places, at least.

The alarmists have been banging the Arctic/Antarctic drum, they’re melting faster than ever…

“Antarctica’s ‘Doomsday Glacier’ Is Melting Even Faster Than Scientists Thought” – Scientific American

March 16, 2025
“Arctic ice is melting faster than expected — and the culprit could be dust” – space.com

And then when nature won’t play by the narrative a bit of spin is required and a little extra time needs to be bought…

Wed 20 Aug 2025
“Dramatic slowdown in melting of Arctic sea ice surprises scientists
Natural climate variation is most likely reason as global heating due to fossil fuel burning has continued”

The finding is surprising, the researchers say, given that carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning have continued to rise and trap ever more heat over that time.

They said natural variations in ocean currents that limit ice melting had probably balanced out the continuing rise in global temperatures. However, they said this was only a temporary reprieve and melting was highly likely to start again at about double the long-term rate at some point in the next five to 10 years.

To see if such a slowdown could be a result of natural variation, they examined the results of thousands of climate model runs. “
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/20/slowdown-in-melting-of-arctic-sea-ice-surprises-scientists

If this insanity can be inflicted at home, Africa has no chance.

oeman50
Reply to  strativarius
August 20, 2025 4:46 am

Good point. Zero times “thousands” = 0.

AlanJ
August 20, 2025 4:42 am

The good news around this idiocy is that the world is not reverting back. Renewables are the cheapest form of new generation and getting cheaper. The rest of the world will continue to build out modern grid infrastructure. The ultimate outcome of this moronic policy will be a slide of the US into global economic irrelevancy. Trump can push for coal fired automobiles all he wants, he won’t ultimately change the trajectory the world is moving in.

MarkW
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 6:26 am

If renewables are so cheap, why do they require massive subsidies and mandates requiring companies and people to use them?
If renewables are so cheap, why do energy prices always go up, massively, when subsidized renewa les are added to the mix.

It really is sad the way you sun worshippers will grasp any lie, so long as it supports your belief system.

AlanJ
Reply to  MarkW
August 20, 2025 7:15 am

If renewables are so cheap, why do they require massive subsidies

Why do FF require massive subsidies?

If renewables are so cheap, why do energy prices always go up, massively, when subsidized renewa les are added to the mix.

Renewables don’t drive prices up. Wind and solar have the lowest marginal costs on the grid and push wholesale prices down when they run. What people mistake for “expensive renewables” is actually the effect of grid upgrades, policy choices about how to recover investment costs, or spikes in fossil fuel prices, since gas plants still set the market price much of the time. That means bills can rise in the short term even while renewables make the system cheaper and less volatile in the long run.

It really is sad the way you sun worshippers will grasp any lie, so long as it supports your belief system.

It’s pretty sad to see gullible people swallowing the crap the coal industry is shoveling into their mouths.

strativarius
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 7:46 am

Why do FF require massive subsidies?”

They don’t. Say an oil company discovers a viable field. Like BP has near Brazil recently. That company will pay to survey, it will then pay handsomely for a licence to win that oil and gas, and then once it’s on stream it will provide lots of revenue.

The cost to the government? A slightly lower rate of tax – tax it would not otherwise have had in its coffers.

If that’s a subsidy…

AlanJ
Reply to  strativarius
August 20, 2025 8:10 am

If that’s a subsidy…

It is. Foregone revenue is a subsidy by definition. Oil and gas benefit from all kinds of these: deductions for exploration and drilling costs, royalty relief, and accelerated depreciation, just to name a few. And that’s ignoring massive implicit subsidies by not charging for pollution, health damage, and climate costs.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 8:58 am

Those kinds of same deductions in form are available to every business and manufacturing concern in the country.

CO2 is not pollution and presents no medically valid hearth hazard.
You disagree? Provide the data. Number of illnesses caused by 400 ppm, 500 ppm, 1000 ppm of inhaled CO2.

You really are ignorant.

AlanJ
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 20, 2025 9:29 am

Those kinds of same deductions in form are available to every business and manufacturing concern in the country.

Right. Lots of industries are subsidized, including, heavily, fossil fuels. No disagreement there.

CO2 is not pollution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 12:56 pm

Wiki.

Bwahahahaha

There is a vast difference between tax deductions and subsidies.

Your education obviously had not included basic economics.

Coal, oil, and natural gas are not heavily subsidized. In comparison to WTG and SV, they are being gypped.

paul courtney
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 20, 2025 3:59 pm

Mr. 4: His education has been over-written with mis-education. He mis-defines the term “subsidy” as he likes, then launches into a mis-direction that would make nyolci blush! AlanJ is a humpty-dumpty troll.

AlanJ
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 20, 2025 5:49 pm

Wiki

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep549/usrep549497/usrep549497.pdf

I always forget the egregious level of hand-holding you lot require. A bit pathetic.

There is a vast difference between tax deductions and subsidies.

What is that difference, specifically?

Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 9:09 pm

We never forget the egregious level of brain-washed ignorance you display. Your comments are a constant reminder

It is hilarious that you are sooooo ignorant that you don’t understand that an up-front subsidy for wind and solar, is basically the opposite of taxation that FF companies have to pay.

AlanJ
Reply to  bnice2000
August 21, 2025 3:24 am

Good job, sweetie, you’re doing sooooo good. Now, if a tax is the opposite of a subsidy, a tax break is…?

Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 5:08 pm

“was required by law to regulate “any air pollutant” which could “endanger public health or welfare.” “

So NOT CO2 !

CO2, at any levels up to many times the current atmospheric level, is a massive benefit to the whole planet.

It is absolutely NOT a danger to public health or welfare.

… in fact, public health and welfare rely almost totally on the benefits of the use of fossil fuels.

Feeding the world, also relies absolutely on having sufficient atmospheric CO2, and current levels are far below optimum levels for plant growth.

Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 2:23 pm

Redefining what a “subsidy” is, typical renewable shill.

Totally ignorant of economic reality

NO, tax rebates and depreciation are NOT subsidies.

Fossil fuels contribute HUGE amounts of money to government coffers.

Wind and solar only TAKE.

They are also highly environmentally damaging at ever stage of their short erratic unreliable life, causing health problems to not just humans but to anything that comes near them.

Fossil fuels have been responsible for massively extending human life spans and are absolutely essential in every part of even your feeble existence..

You could not live without the massive BENEFITS they offer to society.

Not only that, but the CO2 released has been a huge BENEFIT to all life on the planet, helping to provide a much needed push to the carbon cycle, which was basically circling around the drain.

Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 7:21 pm

No, let’s be clear:

A Tax is money the government extorts from you at the point of a gun.

A tax break is when the government does not extort as much money from you at the point of a gun as they could.

A subsidy is when the government gives money extorted from you at the point of a gun to someone else.

At least the Mafia was honest, they did not pretend to be virtuous and they actually did provide the protection you paid for.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 8:55 am

It’s pretty sad to see gullible people swallowing the propaganda of the Climate Syndicate and spewing it out in a vain attempt to brainwash people.

Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 6:26 am

The only ‘coal fired automobiles’ I’m aware of are EVs. Fyi, the boilers on Stanley Steamers were heated with kerosene.

strativarius
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 7:15 am

Renewables are the cheapest form of new generation and getting cheaper. “

What on Earth are you imbibing?

Mr.
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 8:32 am

Renewables are the cheapest form of new generation and getting cheaper. 

Not what consumers in the real world are seeing in their electricity bills, Al.

Are you saying we should trust what boosters like you are spouting, rather than what we’re seeing every month with our own “lyin’ eyes”?

Please explain?

AlanJ
Reply to  Mr.
August 20, 2025 8:45 am

What you see on your bill reflects more than just generation costs, like the cost of marginal fuel.

Mr.
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 9:29 am

Bullshit.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 12:57 pm

Marginal fuel?

But WTG and SV have “free fuel.”

Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 3:40 pm

You mean the huge environmental and economic cost of allowing wind and solar onto a grid..?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 10:03 am

According to the Energy Institutes recent ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’

Coal reached a global record level of demand – 165EJ- in 2024 and was 83% centred on the Asia Pacific Region, 67% of which was in China.

India’s coal use now equals that of the CIS (9 former members of the Soviet Union, including Russia) ,South and Central America, North America and Europe combined. Coal fired power stations are 75% of India’s generation fleet

The Asia- Pacific Region now accounts for 47% of global energy demand and saw a 68% increase in such demand in 2024.

Africa and the Middle East saw the fastest growth in oil demand.

Natural gas met 25% of global energy demand and all regions bar Africa saw a rise in gas demand in 2024.

You need to get out more!

AlanJ
Reply to  Dave Andrews
August 20, 2025 11:43 am

Global demand is rising so fast that fossil use is growing in absolute terms, but renewables are expanding faster and dominate new power capacity being built. In fact, renewables accounted for more than 90% of new capacity installed last year. That is simply the trajectory of the future. Legacy fuels will grow with demand, but renewables will continue to capture growth markets. The US has positioned itself to fall behind,

Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 2:29 pm

power capacity being built”

Except that they are incapable of delivering even a fraction of that capacity..

… sporadically.

US has hopefully beaten the costly and unreliable fake-renewables idiocy, and is now on a path to regain the prosperity that was wasted by going down a dead-end renewables pathway.

rhs
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 2:44 pm

The growth in usable solar and wind combined every year is less than the overall demand increase every year.
Wind and solar combined have to choice but the grow faster and yet, they still don’t live up to nameplate capacity.

Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 12:53 pm

All the heavy industries, all the heavy transportation systems and all emergency and military vehicles will always use enormous amounts of fossil fuels. Another major use of fossil fuels is feedstock for the chemical process industries.

Fossil fuels will always be used for space and water heating and for cooking food. In winter in many countries, fossil fuels keep humans and pet animals from freezing to death. The average temperature in January in Winnipeg is -20° to -10° C, which gets its nat. gas from Alberta and electricity from hydro dams.

Where do you live? What fossil fuels do you use for heating in winter?
Do you have car? What fuel do you use it?

How is electricity that you use is generated?

I’ll stop for now.

Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 2:08 pm

cheapest form of new generation and getting cheaper.”

There’s that nonsense again. Seem AJ is incapable of learning the facts and the truth.

The moronic policy was the “endangerment finding” itself.

The world runs of fossil fuels, you are totally reliant on them every day of your pitiful life.

Modern grid structure is RELIABLE, and provides electricity 24/7.. wind and solar can NEVER do that.

Wind and solar are also the most environmentally damaging form of electricity…

… and totally unsustainable in the long run.

paul courtney
Reply to  AlanJ
August 20, 2025 3:43 pm

Mr. J: Your irrelevancy is localized, “regional” in the CliSci palaver. Try harder, your irrelevancy can go global!

August 20, 2025 4:55 am

I may have asked this before and missed the response. How likely is it that green blob will be successful in their challenge and prevent the endangerment finding from being rescinded? Can a case be made that those suing have no standing? If I recall correctly, when the endangerment finding was passed, it was pretty much rushed and forced through will little to no dissent allowed – but I have no idea if that is possible or true.

strativarius
Reply to  Barnes Moore
August 20, 2025 5:16 am

I can’t answer that directly, but we have an eerily similar problem in the UK….

Acting Reform Warwickshire [Council] leader George Finch wrote to the council’s chief executive asking for the flag, which includes the colours of the trans rights movement and traditional rainbow colours, to be removed.
But the chief executive refused the request, stating in an email response to Finch that she was responsible for such decisions.

“unelected bureaucrats” had “seized control of the country.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gee4w7djzo

The blob here is acting in direct opposition to what people voted for.

Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, said on X
, external
: “This unelected bureaucrat thinks she knows better than the people.
“Perhaps Monica Fogarty should look for a new job.”

Reply to  Barnes Moore
August 20, 2025 7:22 am

No doubt the Supreme Court will have a say in this. Not too difficult to predict their decision.

Reply to  Barnes Moore
August 20, 2025 7:32 am

Good question. Practically speaking and notwithstanding the existence of the Constitution or any ‘official’ process for regulatory rule making, there is absolutely no evidence from US history that the Federal bureaucracy can’t promulgate or rescind any rule it wants to.

However, as you point out, the real fun will begin when our self-appointed interpreters of the Constitution, i.e., the Federal judiciary, weigh in on the issue. Unfortunately for us, there are very few instances when our former law students in black robes actually ruled against any expansion of Federal power.

“Jefferson and the Jeffersonians proclaimed for decades that if the day ever came when the federal government, through its judiciary, became the sole decision maker of what the limits of federal governmental powers would be, Americans would then live under a tyranny.”

https://mises.org/mises-wire/judicial-tyranny-tip-deep-state-sword

Sparta Nova 4
August 20, 2025 6:57 am

In 2024, the annual release of CO2 due to coal, hydrocarbons, and cement is estimated as 82.4 trillion pounds.

There are ~8 billion people.
Each person respirates ~2.3 lb of CO2 per day.
Using 2 lb/day per person, humanity exhales ~ 5.84 trillion pounds of CO2 per year.

Please correct my math if there is an error.

Given my math is correct, one has to wonder how effective Net Zero can be.

August 20, 2025 7:00 am

People are brainwashed to love wind and solar. They do not know by how much they screw themselves by voting for the woke folks who push them onto everyone.
That ignorance is exploited by the woke folks
.
This comment presents an A to Z picture to show the extent of the screwing. 
Very few know how to create such an overview, even less have the freedom to show it to others.
.
Western countries cajoling Third World countries in the Wind/Solar direction, and loaning them money to do so, will forever re-establish a colonial-style bondage on those recently free countries.
.
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC 
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDP. 
.
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people. 
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction
.
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience: 
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth GDP is in de-growth mode.
That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.

Remove your subsidy dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and your electric bills would be lower.
No country in Europe uses Mail-in Ballots and corruptible Voting Machines; No ID, No Vote.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  wilpost
August 20, 2025 12:59 pm

Funny how the resident troll is not pounding on this. 🙂