Today at 1:30 PM EST, the Trump administration — with President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin on hand — is set to formally rescind the 2009 EPA “Endangerment Finding” that has long served as the legal basis for federal regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
That 2009 finding declared that CO₂ and other greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare,” providing the statutory foundation for decades of climate-related regulatory actions from vehicle emissions standards to power plant rules. The White House has characterized this reversal as the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history, expected to save consumers and industry trillions by eliminating what it views as overly burdensome regulations tied to the finding’s legal authority.
Supporters of the move see it as a long-overdue correction of what they consider a scientifically and legally flimsy basis for climate regulation, arguing that CO₂ is not a pollutant in the traditional sense and that the Clean Air Act was never intended to be applied in this way. Opponents, including environmental groups and many scientists, have blasted the repeal as an attack on settled law and an abandonment of federal responsibility to address climate-related harms, and they are already lining up to challenge the action in court. Regardless of one’s stance on climate science, today’s action represents a historic shift in the role of the federal government in regulating greenhouse gases and will likely spark years of litigation over the EPA’s authority and the underlying science.
Many thanks, President Trump for bringing sanity back in our lives, for applying the core values of our western culture and civilization, such as free speech, meritocracy and safe borders.
I live in a looney Blue state. No sanity to be found here at all. They are moving deeper into the asylum where impenetrable barriers to reality preserve closed loops of perception.
In 4 years, a new US administration could come in and reinstate the EPA decision or impose a new form of a carbon regulation, Trump’s arteries will have clogged more, and global surface temperatures will have continued to climb.
Savor the next three years while you can.
Don’t worry, we will.
The World will have moved on in three years, and CAGW will be forgotten.
People said that 20 years ago.
Really? I must have missed that.
Meanwhile in the real world, the Net Zero Banking Alliance has folded. The smart money knows full well the gig is up. Smart money is rarely wrong.
Net-Zero Banking Alliance folds after mass exodus by members | Reuters
20 years ago, people/orgs. were also saying: “The debate is over—global warming has tipped the climate of the planet into crisis” (Time Magazine), “We are on the cusp of a climate crisis, a point of no return that will threaten our health, our economy and our world”. (The Gore-acle),Global warming is no longer a philosophical threat, no longer a future threat, no longer a threat at all. It’s our reality (Bill McKibben)
Agreed, temperatures will have continued to climb . . .
oops sorry, I meant CO2 levels will have continued to climb, could be nice perhaps if we in old Blightly got back up to the temperatures that were around 500 years ago / 2,000 years ago / 10,000 years ago.
Along with more food production, and more importantly ( hopefully ) less deaths due to cold etc
Bring it on.
Absolutely baseless prophecies… The climate wonk way.
Eldrosion, you’ll have to shorten your doom message if you’re going to compete with all those other old guys shuffling along sidewalks with their sandwich boards.
CO2, the gas of life, common sense is making a comeback.
Yes, carbon dioxide is just as important as water for life on Earth:
6CO₂ + 6H₂O => C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂
For those who don’t know, SC has written a chemical formula that describes the formation of glucose, sugar, energy that humans use, often formed in plants with help from the sun.
Those who don’t know probably don’t tune in to WUWT. Perhaps it’s better to spell it out in words:
Carbon dioxide, water, chlorophyll & sunshine produces our food and oxygen.
Not sure about that, we’ve got plenty of CAGW fools around here
chemical equation
Back in 2002 I noticed that climate models were overestimating the growth of CO2 and it’s warming potential by not taking into account the increasing sequestration by plants that would happen. I was called a science denier even back then for understanding photosynthesis. It wasn’t until 2012 when James Hansen wrote the first paper about it that any “climate scientist” noticed what a layman thought was obvious ten years prior. Hansen was using it as an excuse for why warming had not happened as models projected.
Not to be outdone, the Climate Caterwaulers will be at the ready, with shrieks of rage, hysteria, crocodile tears, and cries of “What about the planet!!!” It will be such fun.
Lawsuits will be filed immediately after the announcement by scientifically illiterate climate psychotics. I hope that finally someone with chops can defend empirical science. Incompetents have lost cases that should have been thrown out of court.
We need a prime time televised red team/blue team debate so that the public can understand how they were lied to about climate. The easily manipulated who fell for the propaganda need to be shamed into oblivion.
Yes, the debate hasn’t happened yet. Maybe now it will.
Let them prove their point in court.
The lawsuits won’t be about the facts – they’ll be about some procedural issue.
Cases that should have been laughed out of court have been lost to climate zealots…
No rage or hysteria from me. This is an idiotic decision by the admin, one of the most idiotic, but their legal basis is flimsy and scientific basis nonexistent, so they are about to experience a legal hellstorm and good luck to them. But apart from that, the world is simply moving past Trump and his pitiful clinging onto to antiquated energy sources. The world is going to decarbonize whether the US government goes along with it or not.
I hope and expect that individual states will strengthen their own emissions regulations in light of this.
I’m still waiting for you to present evidence that CO2 is harmful, much less catastrophic.
Mr. J: Your power of projection is active, the Obama EF is an all-time example of flimsy legal/ no scientific basis government action, so naturally you project that onto folks who simply point out that the Obama EF was unfounded when adopted. The world will not slow down burning oil and gas until they start to run out. Prices demonstrate that isn’t happening now. Individual states that follow your advice will hurt their constituents.
I hope Germany survives the next week.
The Netherlands are about on ’empty’ as well.
‘I hope and expect that individual states will strengthen their own emissions regulations in light of this.’
Make yourself happy. At the risk of being called a Neo-Confederate by some of your statist colleagues, I’d be very pleased to see all of our blue-state elites creating precedent by invoking the 10th Amendment, which heretofore all good Leftists agreed was a Constitutional dead letter.
This is a totally BRILLIANT decision by the admin.
It gets rid of one of the most scientifically egregious pieces of garbage legislation ever put forward.
The EF has ZERO scientific basis, and was based only on political idiotology.
Grid wind and solar are totally unsustainable, an economic and environmental disaster from start to finish.
They are NOT an “alternate” energy supply, because they CANNOT supply when needed , and actually put a horrendous and very costly burden on the electricity grid system where-ever they are implemented.
Not only that, but over their pitifully short erratic and parasitic life span, they are the most environmental destructive and toxic forms of electricity currently in use.
The EF is not legislation – merely a finding in support of action under a regulation. The Clean Air Act is legislation.
OK, but you get the gist ! 🙂
Yes, however when going to court, specific words have specific meanings. If the recission was stated just right, there will be no question that it is acting in contravention of legislation – merely that it (the recission) is reversing a poorly thought-out finding that affected how a regulation was imposed. The greenhouse gases pose no threat to humanity, therefore the EF was wrong.
And soon to be former blue state residents will continue to vote with their feet and wallets and leave
Why do you think the world is going to decarbonize? I can’t see any sign of it. I don’t even know of one country that is successfully on its way to doing that. The canary I always look at is the UK. The goal of net zero in power generation by 2030 is going to be missed by a mile. Prices are rising, what little they have managed so far has cost a fortune, and political opposition is rising.
China, according to a broadcast story today, commissioned one coal fired power plant a week last year. They report slightly falling emissions, but they faked the numbers with their revaluation of how much CO2 Chinese coal burning produces. But even the faked numbers don’t show decarbonization. India, do you think India is slowing down or cutting back? Don’t see any signs of it. Do you think the last COP agreed any emission reductions? Who and what? Tell us!
Will individual US states strengthen emissions regulation? Should they? No, they should not, because it will have zero effect on global emissions. Will they? No, because any such state measures almost certainly are constitutionally a federal and not a state matter.
Why exactly do you think they should, though? Why do you think it would make any difference?
The Western, mainly English speaking, climate movement had two basic pillars. One was the panic about the catastrophic effects of global CO2 emissions. This is failing, its just not happening, and its getting more and more obvious its not happening. The second was the complete non-sequitur that the remedy was for us all locally in our own countries, that we could and should move electricity generation to wind and solar, and our heating and transport to EVs and heat pumps, and carry on as normal. Its getting more and more obvious that this second part isn’t going to happen. You can’t move to wind and solar, and you can’t do that while raising demand due to EVs and heat punps, and if you could….? It would only hit about 25% of local emissions in countries doing in total no more than 25% of global emissions. Most of whom are not going to reduce anyway. Its both impossible and pointless. And unaffordable.
And its coming to an end. Its main interest will be that it will furnish a subject for future social historians. I look forward to their analysis. Why on earth did these delusions about climate, energy, sex and gender, and race all suddenly take control in the political class of a few countries at the same time? And why all at once? It was obviously a great delusion, but why there, why then, why these subjects?
I really would like to know. Its like when you read ‘When Prophecy Fails’, you get to understand the mechanics of how the failure works out. But why they got the delusion of the imminent end of the world in the first place? That’s the real and interesting question.
Please, please understand the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide, and stop clamoring for decarbonization. It merely shows that you don’t understand what you are talking about.
Please show us your evidence of actual harm to people.
If for no other reason, this makes me enormously glad I helped put Trump into office. There is virtually no true “science” behind the view that human-produced CO2 is THE cause of “global warming” – which itself has only a fragile connection to the climate conundrum.
Not to mention there is ZERO empirical evidence for any “climate related harm,” irrespective of the “causes” of “climate change.”
“Attribution studies” are garbage, not science, and merely attempt to conflate “bad weather” with “climate change.”
Once you throw out all the attempts to wrongly blame “bad weather” on “climate,” what “harm” has come from the IMPROVEMENT of the climate since The Little Ice Age?!
“Not to mention there is ZERO empirical evidence for any “climate related harm,”
It was 100% scientific fraud. The fictional “harms” being claimed were purely hypothetical constructions that used RCP 8.5 as the baseline and completely ignored adaptation and the benefits side of the equation.
Rejoice, “Our long national nightmare is over” …!*
==================
*”… is a famous phrase spoken by President Gerald Ford on August 9, 1974, upon taking the oath of office after Richard Nixon’s resignation due to the Watergate scandal. It signaled a move toward national healing, emphasizing that the Constitution works and the U.S.-of-A. is a government of laws.”
Hollywood made a feature movie about Watergate.
But not a peep about a con scandal with global financial damage –
CLIMATEGATE.
“Numerous films, documentaries, and television series have been made about the Watergate scandal, with key dramatic feature films including All the President’s Men (1976), Nixon (1995), Frost/Nixon (2008), and 18½ (2022). Several other TV movies and miniseries, such as White House Plumbers (2023)…”
The creation of a reputation bad enough to blame someone else’s war on.
Watergate was a bungled burglary of the Democratic Headquarters in Washington DC, and a subsequent cover-up.
Judging by Clinton/Obama/Biden levels of corruption, Watergate was a Nothing-Burger.
I watched the Watergate Hearings. That is where we learned that Richard Nixon had lied to the nation about it. It was all over for Nixon politically after that.
So did it happen? I dont see any indication here that it did.
It happens at 1:30 EST.
Yes done. Thanks again DJT
Actually, it started a few minutes late, so about 1:38 EST.
It will be like the movie The Climate Empire Strikes Out.
If it happens today, it will be a little over 15 years since the endangerment finding was entered into the federal register 15 December 2009.
The Volstead act (Prohibition) lasted only 13 years.
It was signed on Dec. 7, 2009, a date that will live in infamy, by Lisa Jackboot Jackson. So a little over 16 years ago.
Good way to describe it- a day in infamy. It’ll be interesting to see how Trump describes it.
Cannabis has been illegal in the US for several decades. Legal in many states but still illegal at the federal level. Maybe President Vance will change that- being a bearded hillbilly. 🙂
As I am generally opposed to diverting from the topic at hand, there is information now being published that perhaps legalizing commercially available MJ was ill conceived. The issues are medical, social, psychological, and legal (as in DUI).
I have been a proponent of legalization but with the constraint the it be regulated like alcohol.
I didn’t mind it back in the 70s when it had an aromatic aroma.
The stuff that’s industrially grown, retailed and legally smoked now is rank, smells like roadkill skunk.
Today’s pot literally takes my breath away, one whiff and my airway slams shut. Luckily my airway does open up again but I have to force myself to breath.
Not all in the ’60s was pleasantly aromatic- and even then some was called “skunk weed”. I don’t smoke it. I bake cookies. 🙂
It’s intensely regulated here in Wokeachusetts. Back in the late ’60s I remember telling my friends that “someday- they’ll be MJ stores on every corner, like package stores”. It’s now that way here. 🙂
I’ve been for legalization most my life as a non user but… There are indications with the increase use and strength of modern pot it’s not all roses. I think we need some hard medical studies before making a final decision because this isn’t the pot we grew up around.
It isn’t- it’s better! 🙂
We’ll respectfully agree to disagree with you on this, Joseph.
Skunk weed in my town is about as popular as the prophetic fart in an elevator.
What likely will happen after the repeal unfortunately is that the Dems will sue the administration for violating the Clean Air Act, Section 202 (a) and argue this using the 2007 SCOTUS ruling from Massachusetts v. EPA that so-called “greenhouse gases” fit the definition of an air pollutant; then if the Dems take over the House in the mid-terms, they’ll pass a bill re-establishing the endangerment finding, so Trump will likely have to appeal to the SCOTUS on all of this. Should make for a fascinating discussion at the ICCC meeting in April.
They will have to wait until Trump is out of the office as he can veto the bill.
True, but what I fear is a lefty federal judge orders an injunction blocking the repeal, giving the climate alarmists time to lobby, and if Congress goes Dem, there will be enough RINO’s to reach 2/3 to override a veto, especially if re-establishing the repeal is added to another bill that RINO’s endorse. I am not a lawyer or politician, but I believe that’s what Trump will have to deal with.
I am by no means an expert on this matter. But, the Endangerment finding isn’t a law, is it? It’s simply a regulation put forth by the EPA. Seems like there is no legal standing to prevent it from being removed.
Congress, through legislation, gave the EPA the authority to regulate air pollution. Then the courts (Massachusetts v EPA) declared the greenhouse gases were pollution within the statute. Then the EPA came up with the Endangerment Finding to state that the greenhouse gases actually could cause harm to humans. Then they could regulate the greenhouse gases.
Hopefully, the recission of the EF merely states that it was wrong, and, therefore, the EPA regulations were serious overreach of the agency’s authority. They needn’t attack the legislation or the SCOTUS decision. Just say that it was wrongly implemented, that the several lines of evidence were unfounded, and that is it.
Id est quod id est.
I just reckon it is what it is.
🙂
The problem is going to be realizing the accurate long known definition of pollution which I taught decades ago, apparently now lost. Check Chapter 2, The Definition of Pollution by Charles E. Warren, 1971, Biology and Water Pollution Control (W.B. Saunders Co.), if you can find a copy. Pollution is a generic term. A lot of ‘pollution’ is really close to or actually “Nuisance” but the serious stuff needing care and action was “Contamination” which these various forms of carbon were erroneously so defined. I am positive that there were EPA employees that knew this. Some contamination materials used to be demonstrated in high school chemistry, others elsewhere.
True…they will try no doubt. But it has to pass the Senate…and, at least for now, the filibuster is still in effect for that kind of legislation. A house majority would be easy, a D president to sign inevitable eventually…but 60 senators….thats the hard part. Part of the equation is the SCOTUS ruling getting rid of the “Chevron” deference which was the basis for SCOTUS to just believe whatever the beauracrats at an agency said. Now ambiguity, like the Clean Air Act, vis a vis CO2 would likely not be an available avenue for EPA (or any other agency) to basically do whatever they (ie the President in power) wanted. “47” is being incredibly strategic in how the administration is dealing with these complex issues. I will assume he has a stable of some pretty darn smart strategists..and is using AI to its maximum capability, ie with the “woke” filters turned off…:). The next D president would immediately turn the “woke” feature back on…and go back to getting answers that they want to hear.
Music for while we wait:
You’re welcome.
It’s
About
Time
!!!
Thank you Don and Lee. The dark ages of advocacy climate science are breaking up and Renaissance is upon us.
Advocacy? Nope. Activist.
Climate science? Nope. Trans-Reality Alarmism.
Just announced! Huzzah!
Yay ! EF is EFFED !
😉
I see what you did there. 😉
I borrow from our history…
“…Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last.”
and as Franklin admonished, and I para phrase..”now lets see if you can preserve it”
I’ll sleep well, tonight, and beforehand have my popcorn as I watch to doomsayers scream, but do not the courage of their convictions…
Gums cerebrates…
It’s done. Happy days are here again. But, it now needs to apply to power plants as well as the auto industry.
The endangerment finding only related to autos, trucks, etc. It did not/does not apply to power plants. That previous SCOTUS ruling will be another advantage when the current endangerment finding repeal ends up back in front of the SCOTUS, as well as the reversal of the “Chevron” deference. “47” knows what he is doing!
Excuse me, but I just read the actual text of the “finding” and it seems it provided EPA an excuse or a means of regulating vehicular sources of the ‘evil” gases, though I cannot recall any efforts to restrict water vapor, heh heh.
Later and to this day, the finding has been called upon to produce a zillion regulations and lawsuits concerning climate change. That’s the story seems to me.
Gums sends…
I am sure court challenges will be filed immediately by the usual suspects. There are at least four reasons these should eventually fail at SCOTUS. All have been discussed here in previous posts.
Under the major questions doctrine (WV v EPA), Mass v EPA was wrongly decided and will be reversed. EPA did NOT have the right to define CO2 as a pollutant if it so chose.Under the CAA, CO2 should not have been defined by EPA as a ‘pollutant’ per the then Congressional ‘clean air’intent. SO2 yes, CO2 no—as Earth’s greening with rising CO2 clearly shows.The 2009 EF was provably ‘prebaked’ at the EPA and therefore not legitimate, a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1948 (APA48).The 2009 EF did not incorporate objective observational EPA science, as the CAA requires. IPCC models of the future are NOT observations of the past or present. And those model predictions have been proven objectively wrong—Arctic summer sea ice did not disappear.One of the reasons this has taken a year is that Lee Zeldin had to follow the requirements of APA48 to avoid an otherwise obvious easy challenge.
“EPA did NOT have the right to define CO2 as a pollutant if it so chose”
That’s a super important point.
If EPA had wanted to define Nitrogen as a pollutant, why not?
Too much power delegated by a congress too scared to take a stand.
“If EPA had wanted to define Nitrogen as a pollutant, why not?”
And why not human emissions of water vapor? EPA’s rationale in the 2009 Endangerment Finding about water vapor is sufficient to also rule out any expectation of harmful influence from incremental CO2, if only they had understood the dynamic reasons for their own explanation.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/04/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-4044742
It will be very interesting to read the final rule in the Federal Register in detail whenever it comes out.
This was included in the proposed rule:
“Based on this review of the Endangerment Finding and the most recently available scientific information, data, and studies, the Administrator proposes to find, in an exercise in discretionary judgment, that there is insufficient reliable information to retain the conclusion that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines in the United States cause or contribute to endangerment to public health and welfare in the form of global climate change.” (my bold)
I hope this rationale becomes part of the finalized action.
Next step, remove the ability of any and all Federal bureaucracies that have the effect of Law outside of their internal structure.
(To clarify that last part, any organization needs internal rules to function. One company might have a rule that only a certain, say, two people in a department can take the same week for a vacation so the department doesn’t shut down completely. Maybe another company says four people can be off. Etc.)
GD, a worthy suggestion but unfortunately not possible under current administrative law, which holds that Congress can explicitly delegate ‘details’ to established agencies (or create new ones, as done with the EPA. After appropriate rule making (APA48) those agency rules do have the force of law.
…
Bring back the big V8s 🙂 Vroooom !!!
The Big V8’s are getting more powerful every year.
There are zero EV builds portrayed on the Motor Trend channel.
Trump said we had enough fossil fuels to last us 500 or 1,000 years.
“Trump said we had enough fossil fuels to last us 500 or 1,000 years.”
Trump says a lot of things….. You wouldn’t bet your grandma on anything he says. Unless you hated grannie.
Trump does tend to hyperbole.
I make allowances for that.
I like the results he gets.
I think it is true that we have 500 years of fossil fuels left. I don’t know about the 1,000 year claim. I don’t think anyone knows that answer, including Trump.
Tom, I’ve tried to find where Trump may have got his numbers. But they seem made up. I did find this….
“Based on current production rates, fossil fuels are estimated to last for a few more decades to over a century, with oil and natural gas projected to run out in approximately 50-55 years and coal in about 100-115 years. These estimates vary based on consumption rates, new discoveries, and, as noted in Wikipedia, the fact that they are non-renewable resources.
Oil: Estimated to last 47-56 years.Natural Gas: Estimated to last 50-60 years.Coal: Estimated to last 70-132 years. Now we all know that is a rough guess because we don’t know what we haven’t found. But even being optimistic, Trumps 500-1000 seems like a Trumpy (a lie) to me. Maybe you have another reputable reference I may have missed?
Incidentally when looking I found this reference. Very clever.
“The stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones, and the oil age will not end because we run out of oil.”
MASSIVE tariff on Chinese wind turbines.!!
By not buying any at all, is that a tariff?
Curious minds want to know. 😉
Unfortunately there are still “green” loonies about that want to build the crappy things..
Need to make it impossible for them to do so.
Should we take out life insurance policies, including death and dismemberment, for Eagles?
Trump says he doesn’t want any new windmills built on his watch. 🙂
If some state has already installed turbines, let’s not add insult to injury by adding tariff to the already underestimated maintenance budget. If they install new turbines after 2025? That would be different.
The sooner those obscenities are torn down, the better, IMHO.
The less maintenance, the sooner they will have to be removed.
The last time I drove through the Tehachapi Pass, there appeared to be many, many old, small wind turbines that weren’t running. But no one appeared to be taking them down.
Old metal ones iirc…. Hopefully they will eventually rust..
Surely the environmentalists wouldn’t allow defunct wind turbines to just stay there.. 😉 😉
Any self-respecting environmentalist should be up in arms clamouring for the removal…
Self-respecting …
POTUS Trump the greatest leader in history.
Declaring peace on CO2 will be his greatest peace deal.
Trump is leading the United States in the proper direction: The Common Sense direction.
Despite the Radical Democrats fighting him (and us) every step of the way.
Lie #1, right out of the gate: that this will negatively impact your wallet, through higher insurance costs, health care, food, electricity, heating, and even lost wages due to missed work days.
“You can’t escape the basic physics of climate change,” said Andrew Rumbach, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who co-leads the left-leaning think tank’s climate and communities practice.
Unbelievable. You can’t make this stuff up.
I saw that and almost vomited.
To Andrew Rombach:
It’s easy if there isn’t much.
True, Tyndall proved in 1859 that CO2 was a ‘green house’ gas, in a dry basic physics laboratory atmosphere. Greenhouse is also a misnomer. Greenhouses work by inhibiting convection. GHG work by inhibiting radiative transfer of IR to space.
But how that translates into ‘climate change’ on a water dominated blue planet Earth where demonstrably climate also changes naturally is anything but basic physics.
Tyndall did not know the difference between thermal energy and electro magnetic energy.
Eunice Foote discover it but since she was female it took years before it was presented.
Looking closely at the Tyndall it is clear what he measured was the specific heat in fixed volume. His detector was a thermal pile, which does not measure IR or any EM.
Tyndall also experimentally determined that water saturated air was equivalent to 100% CO2.
Spot on.
Greenhouse effect is incorrect. Greenhouse gases is also incorrect.
FYI, the so called energy imbalance is enveloped by the CERES measurement tolerances.
And the Trans-Reality Alarmist whining and crying has already gone full tilt.
It’s going to cost every American $500,000 over a lifetime due to increase insurance, weather damage, health, etc., etc., etc. all per the alarmist playbook.
The evidence is real. The science is real. Blah, blah, blah.
Oh and Attribution is now Attribution Science.
Thank you President Trump for a return to reality.
“So shines a good deed in a weary world.”
CO2 is fundamental to life on Earth, serving as the primary building block for photosynthesis that sustains plants, food chains, and ultimately all oxygen-breathing organisms including humans. Labeling it a “pollutant” like toxic waste overlooks its essential role in the carbon cycle, much like calling oxygen a pollutant despite its necessity for respiration.
Scientific Role of CO2Plants absorb CO2 to produce glucose and oxygen via photosynthesis: 6CO2+6H2O→C6H12O6+6O26CO2+6H2O→C6H12O6+6O2, directly supporting global agriculture and ecosystems.
Human exhaled breath contains about 4-5% CO2, far higher than atmospheric levels (~0.04%), yet it’s vital for blood pH regulation and no one regulates breathing.
Elevated CO2 has greened the planet, boosting crop yields by 10-20% in recent decades per satellite data, countering starvation risks in developing regions.
Policy ImplicationsRescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding aligns with this reality by rejecting the notion of CO2 as an inherent endangerment under Clean Air Act pollutant standards, as discussed earlier. This avoids overreach, freeing trillions in resources from futile reductions (e.g., Net Zero costs) while allowing natural benefits like enhanced plant growth to continue unchecked. Critics’ “pollutant” framing ignores dose-dependency—oxygen becomes toxic at high pressures, water drowns, yet CO2’s benefits outweigh modeled harms at past/current/future levels.
Oh, come one now. Why talk science when you can have fun ranting? 😉
this makes me happy.
i will be sipping a glass of four roses over ice tonight to celebrate. i will sleep good.
lets have a parade down main street usa.