How to discover the harm in a way to persist?

From Manhattan Inverse

Francismen

As I discussed in the previous article, President Trump's first administrative order -the order entitled “Release of American Energy” -s instructions to re -consider the so -called “Harm Investigation” of EPA 2009 (EF . President Trump issued an administrative order issued on January 20th that EPA submitted “The legitimacy and continuous application of the director's investigation results made suggestions to the director of the management and the budget bureau.

Because EF is the basis of all restrictions and suppression of fossil fuel regulations in Biden Times, it is certain that any attempt to eliminate EF will be attacked by a comprehensive litigation of crazy left -wing forces. Can EF really be abolished in a way to resist these attacks?

Absolutely. Let me talk about several of them.

Massachusetts and Environmental Protection Bureau

This is the 2007 ruling of the Supreme Court. The ruling believes that EPA needs to determine whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are “pollutants” based on the “Clean Air Law”. This is the link of the Supreme Court's opinion. Some reviewer suggestions Mass v. EPA EF must be revoked first.

I disagree. I don't say that Mass v. EPA It is a clear model, and some of them are in the opposite situation. However, I think the final language of most of the opinions of Judge Stevens is:

We do not need or discuss whether the Environmental Protection Agency must make the results of the harmful investigation when they are repaid, or if the Environmental Protection Agency has made such a survey results, the policy consideration can provide information for the action of the Environmental Protection Agency. Essence Essence Essence We only believe that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must explain or not act in regulations.

therefore Mass v. EPA It is not determined whether the CO2 belongs to the “pollutant” defined in Article 202 of the Clean Air Law, but only indicates that EPA determines whether it is a “pollutant”. Therefore, EPA has made a new reasonable decision, that is, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases no Pollutants will not violate this situation.

West Virgina Prosecution and Environmental Protection Bureau

Another important judgment of the Supreme Court to EF is West Virginia complained to the US Environmental Protection AgencyIn the 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA's clean power plan exceeded the regulatory authority of the Clean Air Law. The foundation of the court's judgment is the so -called “major problem principle”. This principle believes that the “transformative expansion” of the supervision power of the Environmental Protection Agency requires the clear instructions of Congress, but Congress has not given clear instructions.

In 2024, even though West Virgina Prosecution and Environmental Protection BureauWithout Congress's further instructions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has continued to formulate two huge new regulations to limit the use of fossil fuel, one is about power plants, and the other is about cars. They essentially decide to challenge the Supreme Court to try to stop them (just like Biden repeatedly strives to eliminate student loans).

West Virgina Prosecution and Environmental Protection Bureau No clear veto Massachusetts and Environmental Protection BureauBut the two are fundamentally nervous. The biggest difference is that the judgment made by the court Massachusetts and Environmental Protection Bureau Since then, the personnel have changed a lot. Of the nine judges of the Supreme Court in 2007, only three judges remained -Roberts, Thomas and Alto -they were right Mass v. EPAEssence The majority of the five judges and Skalia have been replaced by three conservatives (Gosac, Cavano and Barrett) and three liberals.

In today's court, I think most people are likely to support reasonable abolition of EF, and it is not necessary to reject it Mass v. EPAEssence

Revisit the substantial content of decision

In the abolition of EF EPA regulatory operations, three points need to be proposed: (1) the experience evidence accumulated since the original EF makes the discovery invalid, and cannot be reached the conclusion of “danger” of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. (2) As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have increased significantly since 2009, it has exceeded the regulatory capacity of EPA, so any regulations promulgated by EPA cannot have any meaning to the overall atmospheric concentration of these gases. The influence, and (3 In contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to control the climate by restricting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will almost definitely have a serious adverse effect on public health and well -being. Push the cost or mobility of power, leading to large -scale battery fires and explosions, as well as many other similar things.

In these three points, only the first point involves whether the greenhouse gas will cause any serious global warming “science”. The most important thing is that this argument needs to be carefully written to avoid exceeding the required range. In order to abolish EF, EPA does not need to argue that greenhouse gases will not or cannot cause any global warming. On the contrary, they can let the other party bear the responsibility of proof, proves that the greenhouse gases emitted in the scope of the EPA regulatory jurisdiction will inevitably cause Dangerous warming. EPA only needs to conclude that there is not enough evidence to prove this.

From this point of view, this is not a complex or difficult task. Since 2009, hundreds of scientific papers have accumulated evidence of experience in colleagues' review documents, proving that the danger of prediction 15 years ago has not occurred. For example:

• Hurricane, drought, flood, tornado, wildfire or other dangerous weather incidents have not risen.
• The rising speed of the sea level did not exceed the slow rising speed of the last century.
• Sea ice does not decrease as predicted. There are no meaningful changes on Greenland and Antarctic Ice Cards.

EPA can create a list of dozens or hundreds of such scientific papers, and may add one or two rows of summary to each paper.

In fact, (2) and (3) points are more important for the abolition of scientific issues that are abolished. Trying to replace the fossil fuel energy system with unprocessed and tested things, it will actually bring many real and direct dangers -more realistic, direct and direct, and direct, and direct, and directly, and directly, directly, directly, and directly, Danger. Only about 30-40% of California's electricity comes from wind and solar energy, but it has repeatedly encountered turbine. The degree of power outage is relatively small, just because California has the ability to generate electricity from imported fossil fuels from neighboring states such as Arizona and Nevada. If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency eliminates the safety valve by prohibiting all states from fossil fuel power plants in all states, the power outage will become long and catastrophic. Similarly, batteries are recommended as spare power supply intermittently as wind and solar power generation. Both California and New York State have begun to build a large battery field to play this role, although both states have not achieved nearly 1% of the battery capacity required to support the main wind/solar power system. But even if the number of batteries is so small, the battery facilities of the two companies have encountered large -scale explosive fires. Last week, a fire broke out in the Moslandin plant in Montrey County, California. This is the fourth fire that has occurred in the Mosxin plant in the past few years.

In fact, my re -consideration of EF will be full of confidence. This is likely to eliminate all the restrictions on fossil fuels implemented through supervision during the administration. Another thing: Once carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are announced no longer “pollutants”, all the billions of dollars of government funds provided by the “Reduction Act” for “Reducting Gas Pollution” can be suspended. It will take away.

Related