It seems that Trump 2.0 will be much more interesting than Trump 1.0 -Watt?

From Manhattan Inverse

Francismen

In the first few days when Trump's new government took office, the president signed a large number of administrative orders. These materials provided more comprehensively commented more than a humble personal blogger like me. Therefore, I just need to start with a specific project I am very familiar with: EPA's so -called dangerous investigation results in December 2009.

I saw that the number of Trump's first administrative orders had different statistics. There are 42 ABC News News (ABC News). There are a lot of important information in the administrative command. All in all, it will reverse all efforts to restrict and suppress US energy production and development in the Biden government. But I think that one clause is more important than other terms. That is, Article 6 (F), instructions re -review the so -called dangerous investigation results (EF) in December 2009.

(f) Within 30 days from the date of the release of this order, the director of EPA shall cooperate with the person in charge of any other relevant institutions to submit joint suggestions on the legitimacy and continuous applicability of the director of the investigation to the director of OMB, “The” Cleaning Air Law Law 》 The results of greenhouse gas hazards and reasons or contribution surveys stipulated in Article 202 (A) “, final rules, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).

This provision is important, because as long as the results of the “dangerous investigation” are still recorded, it grants a permit from a radical left judge in the court and anywhere in the federal system to prohibit and revoke all other relaxation controls. The efforts of the office and other energy -related offices in the abroad. However, if EF is abolished on the basis of reasonable and full support, all other measures related to energy -related measures will have a clearer way to succeed.

EF's background knowledge will help readers understand its importance. As early as the early 2000s, as the climate panicked, the activists thought of trying to make the court force The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” based on the “Clean Air Law” to supervise (and inhibit) fossil fuel. Some states led by Massachusetts and New York requested EPA to announce CO2 as “pollutants”, which will give EPA supervision CO2 capabilities, and can even be said to be obligations. Since carbon dioxide is the inherent product of fossil fuel combustion, the “supervision” of carbon dioxide emissions may include completely prohibiting fossil fuel combustion (if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is so decided). Such a ban will make more than 80% of the current energy system in the United States illegal.

People who oppose this strategy responded that the “Clean Air Law” has never planned to deal with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is colorless, tasteless, and non -toxic. It is the inherent product of most energy production and consumption. However, the wording of the “Clean Air Act” passed in 1970 was of course vague enough to provide an opportunity. The following is the language of “Cleaning Air Law” when submitted to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts/New York State cases: 202 (a) (1) in Article 202 (a) (1):

“this [EPA] Managers should be provided as regulations. Essence Essence The standards for any air pollutant emissions for any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engines suitable for any category or category. According to his judgment, these pollutants will cause or promote air pollution that can reasonably expect public health or welfare … ” Essence

Other similar regulations give similar powers to the United States environmental protection director to supervise the “pollutants” sources outside the motor vehicle.

Therefore, this regulation defines “pollutants” as a “judgment” of the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, and “can reasonably expected public health or well -being”. During George W. Bush's administration, despite the states' petitions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency refused to make such a survey results on carbon dioxide. As a result, Massachusetts, New York State, and the common plaintiff filed a lawsuit, trying to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to make this ruling. In 2007, the case was submitted to the Supreme Court. This is the court's opinion. Massachusetts and Environmental Protection BureauEssence In short, the court ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether carbon dioxide constitutes a “pollutant” in the sense of “danger to public health or well -being.”

It is shameful that George Bush's people handed the decision to the Obama government, which came to power in 2009. The long -term regulatory documents found that carbon dioxide did pose a threat to human health and well -being, so it was a “pollutant” supervised by the Clean Air Law. This is a document called the “dangerous investigation results”, which is cited and referenced in Trump's administrative order.

Subsequently, EF issued a license to the Obama Astroniste crazy adjustment of carbon dioxide emissions. To give an extreme example, the Obama administration promulgated their so -called “clean energy plan”. The plan has gradually reduced the allowable carbon dioxide emissions over time to force almost all fossil fuel power plants.

This is when the Trump 1.0 government came to power in January 2017. Regulatory measures will be stopped by the court. After all, if the US Environmental Protection Agency found that carbon dioxide pose a threat to human health and well -being, how could it not take measures to restrict emissions?

When Trump took office in 2017, we don't know if the new president or his people understand the significance of EF. Therefore, a group entitled “Caring for the Home Electricity Consumers” (Checc) was established, and EPA is requested to abolish EF. The entity submitted a petition to EPA on January 20, 2017 (the first day of Trump 1.0 government). I am one of the lawyers of CHECC. Fundamentally, this idea is to let the New Trump Environmental Protection Agency notice this issue and ensure that they pay attention to this issue. We also provide convincing scientific evidence to illustrate why carbon dioxide is ridiculous.

To our surprise, our petition was completely ignored. In four years, we kept trying to obtain information about what happened (but the effect was small), and also submitted seven supplementary materials for our petition. Each supplementary material brought new science Article or evidence indicates that carbon dioxide does not exist in the environment. But during the entire Trump 1.0 period, no action was taken on this issue. On January 19, 2021, the day before his departure, the Trump Environmental Protection Agency rejected our petition in a simple rejection. The upcoming Biden government spent another year and three months, and in April 2022, we made a longer and cunning rejection of our petition.

There is no doubt that many readers here are familiar with our efforts we have made after denying. We could have given up, but our idea is that if we see this through the Washington Special Economic Zone Tour Court and the Supreme Court, we may make a compulsory re -consideration decision when taking office in the New Trump administration. With such a decision, the Trumps can no longer ignore this problem and will be forced to face this problem. However, our efforts have not succeeded in tour courts and the Supreme Courts in Washington, DC. We were rejected on December 11, 2023 with the review application of the US Supreme Court.

Since the recent election, I have participated in many discussions on whether to start new petitions to try to abolish EF. Suddenly, after taking office, Trump 2.0 immediately began to undergo the results of the dangerous investigation, and no new petition was submitted at all. Harry Luya! Someone must finally understand the importance of this incident. Maybe even Donald himself! I think our previous efforts are related to Education Trump and his people, although I can't know this.

The work of abolishing EF is not necessarily difficult. EF itself is full of sores. In order to make an incompetent revocation, what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has to do is to quote dozens of scientific papers since the release of the European Environment Forum. evidence. Many knowledgeable people are ready to provide help at any time, including members of the carbon dioxide alliance. The alliance is composed of a group of outstanding scientists. They believe that EF has completely defects.

I don't want to be too optimistic, but I will make such a prediction: if EF is abolished through reasonable regulatory actions, the court will hardly prevent Trump from overthrowing all Obama's policies. limit. Four years later, basically all these restrictions were canceled, and the Environmental Protection Agency also cleared climate activity. The government once again tried to force the ability to perform unnecessary energy transformation will disappear forever.

Related