Reexamine the hazard discoveries of the Obama era – Watt?

Reversing this error EPA discovery will reduce climate alerts and wear on green energy

Paul Driessen

The so-called consensus on climate disaster is disintegrating under increasing pressure on reality. Green energy subsidies, regulations and authorizations are collapsing. 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.

The higher anxiety comes from Lee Zeldin's EPA review of the 2009 “Hazard Discovery” (EF) – the basis and reason for restrictive Obama and Biden era and the basis and reason for allowing power generation, cars, cars, stoves, household appliances, etc.

Humans and animals exhale carbon dioxide when they breathe, and the combustion process also emits carbon dioxide, as well as absorbing carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen during photosynthesis plants. 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, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.

But fossil fuel-hate activists blame CO2 for the so-called “climate crisis”, and Massachusetts v. EPAThe U.S. Supreme Court said that if the agency finds that they “caused or contributed” to “air pollution”, the EPA could regulate CO2 emissions, which could be “reasonably expected” and “hazardous to public health or welfare.”

Obama EPA quickly determined that they did and issued a dangerous discovery that enabled agencies to effectively control the energy, transportation, industry, stoves and stoves in the United States, and in fact, in almost every aspect of our living and living standards, can help “fundamentally change” the country.

When making its decision, EPA did not study its own research, relying heavily on Gigo computer models and outdated technical research, dismissing the obvious benefits of rising atmospheric CO2 levels and ignoring studies that do not support its decision. The EPA even told one of its own experts (who provided evidence and analyzed what contradicted the formal 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.

The first,,,,, Massachusetts v. EPA Has been quarantined, making it irrelevant or effectively reversed.

West Virginia v. EPA (2022) ruled that federal agencies may not violate the “main problem doctrine”, which is believed to be in the absence of Clarify Congress direction or authorizationinstitutions may not make decisions or issue regulations with “huge economic and political significance”.

Obama's EPA does not have a clear congressional language or authorization to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant that could “hause public health or welfare.” The Supreme Court is Massachusetts Emphasize that there is no Congressional intention or direction. 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 ruling Loper Bright v Raimondo Overturned the court's decision in 1984 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.

secondPost-2009 research and analysis shows that carbon dioxide is huge favorable For forests, grasslands and farmlands – and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) have not yet replaced powerful, complex, interconnected natural forces that always drive global warming, climate change, ice age, ice age, small 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.)

thirdOur energy, work, living standards, health, welfare, national security, and more depend on fossil fuels – used in energy and medicines, plastics and thousands of other essential products made using petrochemical raw materials.

fourthChina, India and other rapidly developing countries also depend on fossil fuels, which are actually Increase Their coal and oil are used every year – to build their own industries and economies and improve people's health and living standards. They are not trying to stop doing this to appease those who insist that the world is facing a climate crisis. This means that eliminating coal, oil, gas and petrochemical uses in the United States has no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions.

at lastthe main threat to human and planetary health and welfare does not come from use Fossil fuels – but from eliminate They tried to use “clean, green, renewable” energy instead and no longer had important petrochemical products.

As the UK and Germany have shown, the intermittent nature of steering with backup power, weather-dependent wind and solar power 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 of heatstroke, hypothermia and illness every year, 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 icy spells, trapped in cars with blizzards and hurricanes evacuated, and thus more deaths.

A slightly warmer planet with a more atmospheric carbon dioxide is good for plants, wildlife and humans. one cold Planets and Fewer Carbon dioxide will significantly reduce arable 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.

Related