As discussed in several recent articles here and here, the so-called carbon dioxide hazard discovery (EF) was an early (December 2009) EPA regulatory action by the Obama administration and currently lays the foundation for all government efforts to limit and curb the use of hydrocarbons in our economy. [emphasis, links added]
In his first day of execution of orders (“Unlock U.S. Energy”), President Trump directs upcoming EPA administrators to submit within 30 days “Recommendations made to the Director of OMB regarding the legitimacy and ongoing applicability of the administrator's findings. ”
Lee Zeldin was then confirmed and swore as an EPA administrator on January 29; but on the 30th day after the EO on February 19, there was no public news about EF's recommendations.
There is news today.
Apparently, The Washington Post was the first channel to break the story. But that piece is behind their paywall, so I won't link to it. [Archived version here]
Fortunately, multiple sockets behind the paywall quickly released a slightly rewrite of the WAPO story. This is the version from Politico, which is the version of the Associated Press that appears in the Atlanta Diary Constitution.
Not surprisingly, The news is that Zeldin recommends rethinking EF. Apparently, the suggestion was made a few days ago in a private memorandum.
This is the AP/AJC version:
In a potentially landmark action, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency privately urged the Trump administration to reconsider a scientific discovery that has long been the core foundation of U.S. action against climate change. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin called for rewriting the agency's findings in a report to the White House that identified Planet-Alling Generhhouse Gases that endanger public health and welfare.
If this is a private memorandum, how does this story perform in The Washington Post and other media? The answer is of course anonymous leak.
AP/AJC article says there is “Four people briefed on the matter but spoke to the Associated Press on anonymous.”
It's no surprise there – I hope 90% or more of the EPA's retention staff are hostile to the new government and are happy to do everything they can to destroy it.
But, further note this from the same story:
Trump said at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday Zeldin told him he was expelling about 65% of the EPA workforce. “A lot of people who don't have jobs are just hindering the hindrance,” Trump said.
Trump's EPA administrator should do this during his first four-year term. But it's never too late.
The most notable thing about news reports is the arrogant and contemptuous reaction of the usual suspect on the left.
For example, Politico gets quotes from David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Commission (NRDC) and Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):
“This decision ignores science and law,” David Doniger, senior climate and energy strategist and attorney for the National Defense Commission of Natural Resources, said in a statement. “The EPA's clear legal responsibility to curb climate-changing pollution only makes sense: oil, coal and gas-rich giants hand the president millions of dollars in campaign donations.” …
Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said that any move to withdraw the discovery was “reckless and illegal, ignoring the EPA’s fundamental responsibility to protect Americans from destructive climate pollution. We will strongly oppose it.”
Environmental groups and Democratic-led states will do everything they can to oppose the EF's back, and they basically have unlimited funds to litigate. So, will it be difficult to do and/or possibly fail in court?
In the two linked works I have read, most of the discussion involves revoking the heavy lifting necessary through the “Notice and Comment” rulemaking process.
For example, here’s Bloomberg’s work (behind the paywall) undoing EF is a huge challenge:
It may take years for the EPA to relax the danger discovery through the necessary rule-making process, and even then, it may not survive the inevitable legal challenges.
They are trying to scare the administration, but I think they are right or it will work. First, the idea that the rulemaking process “takes years” is ridiculous. Yes, it's a cumbersome process.
However, Obama people took office on January 20, 2009, completing the entire rule-making process and published the EF in its final form on December 15, 2009, less than 11 months later. I don't know why the Trumps can't meet the same schedule, and even after a few months it can't be improved.
Secondly, scientific papers used to support revocation are easy. Since 2009, several juniors with access to the internet and Google have easily published hundreds of papers to support the No-Danger position.
When I arranged it in my post on January 26, The most important is papers that have no trend in severe weather events (hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc.). There are many.
The lack of compelling evidence of increased severe weather, Enviros has only one claiming that gradually warming in the next century will be some kind of big problem.
However, the EPA can respond that the cost and risk of forcing energy to transition to untested systems is far from the limit, and the dangers to human health and welfare are high: power outages in winter deaths, when all heat commands all heat to generate electricity; fires used to back up wind and solar power in huge grid-scale battery installations; toxic gases from this fire damage large urban populations; leaks and explosions affecting hydrogen infrastructure; electric cars and buses are not timed for freezing days and stranded occupants; and so on.
What about the risk of a large number of people losing electricity or home heat or car transportation because they can’t afford it?
The purpose of all these things is that they are not a question of the “science” of global warming. This is a matter of making judgment calls, trading one set of dangers and risks against another.
There is no appeal to the authority of “scientists” preaching, and it cannot even address the risk of forcing unproven new energy technologies.
So get started working, EPA! I want to see the Thanksgiving EF disappear. Then, we will thank you.
Read more among Manhattan counter-trends
