The so-called consensus on climate disaster is disintegrating under increasing pressure on reality. Green energy subsidies, regulations and authorizations are collapsing. [emphasis, links added]
Greenpeace was sentenced for $667 million for conspiracy, slander, trespassing and promoting arson and property damage.
Last year’s “Buy Tesla – Save the Earth” placard has been exchanged for “mostly peace” protests based on “Torch A Tesla”, saving our democracy and hell’s toxic pollution and “carbon” emissions.
EPA chief Lee Zeldin reviewed the agency’s 2009 “Hazard Discovery” (EF) – restrictive Obama and Biden-era standards and regulations regarding permitted generation, cars, stoves, household appliances, and more, higher anxiety disorders are beating climate activists.
Humans and animals exhale carbon dioxide when they breathe, and the combustion process also emits carbon dioxide (CO2), which during photosynthesis, plants absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen.
More atmospheric carbon dioxide can help plants grow better, faster, and less water. Almost all life on Earth depends on this process. This is basic science.
That's why the Clean Air Act and its list of hazardous pollutants do not include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ground ozone, particles and sulfur dioxide.
But activists who hate fossil fuels blame the so-called “climate crisis” on carbon dioxide – in Massachusetts v. EPA v. U.S. Supreme Court v. EPA said that if the agency finds that they “caused or caused “air pollution” could be “reasonably expected” to “endanger public health or welfare,” the EPA could regulate CO2 emissions.
Obama EPA quickly confirmed that they did and issued a dangerous discovery that enabled agencies to effectively control U.S. energy, transportation, industry, stoves and stoves – Indeed, almost every aspect of our living and living standards can help “fundamentally change” the country.
When making the decision, EPA did not study its own research, relied heavily on Gigo computer models and outdated technical research, dismissing the obvious benefits of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and ignoring studies that did not support its decision.
The EPA even told one of its internal experts (who provided evidence and analyzed contradictory to the official claims): “The government has decided to move forward [on implementing the EF] And your comments do not help the legal or policy case for that decision. ”
This alone is a compelling reason to reverse hazard discovery. But other realities also convincingly say that EPA's 2009 action should be invalid.
First, Massachusetts v. EPA v. EPA has been quarantined and irrelevant or effectively reversed.
The process used by EPA to render its intended discoveries shows that practical science rarely works.
West Virginia v. EPA (2022) ruled that federal agencies may not violate the “main issue doctrine” which believes is Institutions may not make decisions or issue regulations that have “large economic and political significance” without a clear congressional direction or authorization.
Obama's EPA does not have a clear congressional language or authorization to declare CO2 a pollutant that could “hause public health or welfare.”
The Supreme Court’s minimum guidance in Massachusetts highlights the lack of intention or direction in Congress.
The process used by EPA to render its intended discoveries shows that practical science rarely works. The immense significance and impact of EF decisions and subsequent regulations is difficult to object to.
Similarly, SCOTUS 2024 is on Loper Brightv. The ruling in Raimondo overturned the court's 1984 ruling in Chevron v. NRDC and ended judicial respect for government agencies (“Chevron Doctrine”).
If these explanations greatly expand regulatory powers or inflate the cost of the private sector, bureaucrats may no longer design “reasonable explanations” that are unclear in the statutory language.
These two decisions mean that the EPA has no right to convert the life-giving carbon dioxide from plants into a dangerous, health-threatening pollutant.
Secondly, post-2009 research and analysis shows that carbon dioxide is very beneficial to forests, grasslands and farmland – Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) do not replace powerful, complex, interconnected natural forces that have been driving global warming, climate change, ice age, ice age, ice age, and extreme weather events.
The EPA ignored this in 2009.
Others show that there is no climate crisis, there is no unprecedented unprecedented in today's climate and weather, and that there is nothing more easily dealt with in modern industrial society than our ancestors.
(See Climate Change Reconsideration II, Carbon Dioxide Alliance Study, NOAA Hurricane History, U.S. tornado record and study Trump EPA will undoubtedly consult during its EF reconsideration.)
Third, our energy, work, living standards, health, welfare, national security, etc., depend more on fossil fuels – Thousands of other essential products used in energy and medicines, plastics, and made from petrochemical raw materials.
Fourth, China, India and other rapidly developing countries also rely on fossil fuels and are increasing coal and oil use every year – Build your own industry and economy and improve people's health and living standards.
They won't stop appeaseing those who insist that the world is facing a climate crisis. This means that even if the U.S. coal, oil, gas and petrochemical uses are eliminated, there will be no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, the main threat to human and planetary health and welfare is not from the use of fossil fuels, but to eliminate themtrying to use “clean, green, renewable” energy instead without having important petrochemical products.
As the UK and Germany have shown, the intermittent nature of steering with backup power, weather-dependent wind and solar energy raises the electricity price to 3-4 times the average that Americans currently pay.
The industry cannot compete internationally, with millions of jobs, living expenses soaring, and families cannot heat up their homes in the winter or cool their homes in the summer.
Thousands of people die every year with strokes, hypothermia and illness, and if they are less hot, cold or malnutrition, they will survive.
In poor countries, drinking water contaminated due to lack of refrigeration, lack of refrigeration, and diseases cured in modern health care systems, food spoiled due to lack of refrigeration, food spoiled due to lack of refrigeration, food caused by food caused by the lack of refrigeration.
The common factor of all these deaths is the lack of reliable, affordable energy, which is largely imposed by climate-centric bureaucracies that fund wind and solar projects only for poor countries.
Wind and solar power, electric vehicles and batteries brought back and associated transmission lines require metals and minerals to be mined and processed at unprecedented scales, power generation facilities covering millions of acres of arable land and wildlife habitats, and disposal of huge equipment that rapidly break or cannot wear out, cannot be regenerated.
Relying on wind, solar and battery power also means power outages in heat waves and cold spells, cars trapped in blizzards and hurricane evacuation, so there are more deaths.
A slightly warmer planet with a more atmospheric carbon dioxide is good for plants, wildlife and humans. A colder carbon dioxide planet will significantly reduce cultivated land, growing seasons, wildlife habitats, and our ability to feed humans.
EPA's dangerous discovery in 2009 almost ignores all of these realities. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin's re-examination of the decision must not be repeated.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Constructive Tomorrow Council (www.cfact.org) and the author of books and articles on energy, climate change, economic development and human rights.
