EPA Reverses Long-Standing Climate Change Finding, Stripping Its Own Ability To Regulate Emissions (nbcnews.com) 149
President Donald Trump announced Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency is rescinding the legal finding that it has relied on for nearly two decades to limit the heat-trapping pollution that spews from vehicle tailpipes, oil refineries and factories. From a report: The repeal of that landmark determination, known as the endangerment finding, will upend most U.S. policies aimed at curbing climate change. The finding -- which the EPA issued in 2009 -- said the global warming caused by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endangers the health and welfare of current and future generations.
"We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy," Trump said at a news conference. "This determination had no basis in fact -- none whatsoever. And it had no basis in law. On the contrary, over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world."
Major environmental groups have disputed the administration's stance on the endangerment finding and have been preparing to sue in response to its repeal.
"We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy," Trump said at a news conference. "This determination had no basis in fact -- none whatsoever. And it had no basis in law. On the contrary, over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world."
Major environmental groups have disputed the administration's stance on the endangerment finding and have been preparing to sue in response to its repeal.
Intelligence has limits... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but stupidity has infinite potential.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when they all somebody else has to pay ...
Re: Intelligence has limits... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes states are the right answer, when there is no common interstate interest. Of course rivers and air doesn't abruptly end at state lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes states are the right answer, when there is no common interstate interest. Of course rivers and air doesn't abruptly end at state lines.
The obvious answer is to build a wall around each state extending from deep below the surface upwards to outer space then make the federal government pay for it. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kind of thinking we should blow up the Earth into separate chunks. A new asteroid belt, and we can all have our own asteroid to live on.
Plus there's lots of gold in the Earth's core, and we'd finally be able to get to it. Might be enough for each of us to own a solid gold toilet.
(Vote for me for President 2028)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kind of thinking we should blow up the Earth into separate chunks. A new asteroid belt, and we can all have our own asteroid to live on.
Plus there's lots of gold in the Earth's core, and we'd finally be able to get to it. Might be enough for each of us to own a solid gold toilet.
(Vote for me for President 2028)
That’s an amazing idea and I feel stupid for not thinking of it. Maybe we could find a way to direct an earth moon size object into impacting so we have even more gold and resources. I’m in favor of the jobs it would create.
Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
As disastrous as this sounds, the short term impact will be minimal. Companies are not going to invest in new capability without having a stable regulatory environment. If Dems lose big in Nov '26, they might then...but if Dems win big, expect companies to do nothing knowing that in 2028 the Endangerment Finding will be back and even more dire.
At the end of the day, Congress should be legislating these types of regulations and not leaving it up the current person occupying the White House. They need to get it together and do their job...or maybe "We the People" need to start doing our job instead of electing politicians that care more about their own power than they do about the future of America.
I'm a founding member of MASA - Make America Sane Again
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there will be a number of opportunities for companies to profit from the removal of the rules for as long as the rules are gone. For example, manufacturers may turn to cheaper, high GHG feedstocks over the next couple of years.
In the end, this is being done by a bunch of old scared men shouting at the future, and they will die and leave the rest of us alone. But they can certainly make things shittier until they’re gone
Re: (Score:2)
Posting to remove a mod.
Re: (Score:2)
There will have to be economic sanctions to offset any gains.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure I'm following your logic.
That's because you're thinking in terms of massive generalizations, as if the many millions of people in each generation are all the same, move in lockstep, and are equally responsible for any given thing that happens on their watch. The people you are replying to, the logic you're not following, and I dare say reality are a bit more nuanced than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Things I’m confident I’ll never do: fight against vaccines, climate science, support racism or misogyny, rail against wind turbines like a loon, support fascism, forget that I have been very very lucky in some respects and that others haven’t. It’s not that fucking hard, tbh
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:4, Informative)
This is entirely my point. The things I listed aren’t some kind of “supreme moral ground” — they’re minimal reasonable stances for any functioning member of society. Don’t be anti-science and don’t be a fascist is a code that hundreds of millions of people have been able to live by for decades in which we built the best societies humans have ever lived in — as opposed to fascist societies and pre-scientific societies which were horror shows.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
At the end of the day, Congress should be legislating these types of regulations
Absolutely. However, hyper-partisanship makes it impossible. Can you see GOP and Democrats finding common ground on this issue in 2026? Democrats are all-in on Net Zero and GOP wants to ban renewables. How can you reconcile these positions?
Re: Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no requirement for a 50-50 split. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet almost every vote on anything everywhere these days seems to result in exactly that: A near-perfect 50-50 split.
That's weird, isn't it Mr Zuckerberg
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, fewer than 4% of American voters account for an actual solid majority in the Senate. The US constitution, in order to protect slavery, allows 4% of the country to rule over the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Everyone should be removing the Guardians Of Paedophiles anyway.
The fact it's even close to 50/50 makes America a disgrace to humanity.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently republicans no longer believe pollution is detrimental to their health.
How the fuck am I supposed to compromise on that?
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Funny)
Get them to suck some exhaust pipes if pollution is so harmless. Make it a bet or tell them it's the only way to really be macho and not gay or something. The problem should solve itself.
Stop giving them money (Score:5, Insightful)
Start by making them pull their own weight.
The next step is encouraging bottom-up independence. Pro-feudal Republicans want dependency. This is one of the reasons they fight universal health care - keeping insurance tied to employment suppresses business formation by keeping a lot of people tied to their job because of risk.
Eventually opinions and expectations shift.
In the mean time, keep pointing how how Republicans are ruining their grandkids' lives, leaving them poorer, less educated, and sicker.
Re:Stop giving them money (Score:5, Insightful)
#1 cost for automotive industry in the USA: Healthcare. Then we bitch about unfair Chinese subsidies because they have free healthcare... they also treat electricity like a government service... like public roads, water... Luckily, we got highways and water long before the corporatism took over or we'd be paying tolls on every road to some mega corporation (likely foreign owned) and buying jugs of water everywhere it's not profitable enough to run water pipes.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently Democrats no long belive in having agriculture, industry, or transportation and want us all to subsistence starve to death to save the planet.
How the fuck am I supposed to compromise on that?
I must have missed all that legislation. Can you link to any?
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Compromise on what? That pollution is bad? It's a fundamental question: Is continuing to add carbon to the system a good thing, bad thing, or neutral? This administration, against the feedback from the vast majority of the scientific community, has quite literally just said "nah, it's fine". There's no compromise to be made, you either agree on the fundamentals or not. The part to compromise on is the "what should we do about it?" question, but you can't even begin to answer that question until you agree on the underlying premise that we need to curtail our carbon emissions.
At the end of the day policy is the only thing worth haggling over. This notion there has to be agreement on facts or facts even matter is misguided. Few sufficiently care what is "good" or "bad" within the longtermist context of climate change for objective agreement to matter... Too far out, too abstract, too global, too costly.
Everyone would be better served advocating for policies most people are willing to accept.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
This notion there has to be agreement on facts or facts even matter is misguided....Everyone would be better served advocating for policies most people are willing to accept.
How can you get people to agree to accept something when a significant portion of them do not agree on what the fundamental problem is? Or that a problem even exists? I absolutely agree with your sentiment, we would be better served advocating policies the majority of people are willing to accept. But sometimes the adults in the room need to stand up and do the right thing instead of the popular thing. So no, I'm not willing to compromise on the fundamental "excess carbon in our atmosphere is a hazard to our future existence.". Again, the "what should we do about it" is certainly open for debate, but you cannot have a constructive debate with someone who disagrees with what the problem is.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you get people to agree to accept something when a significant portion of them do not agree on what the fundamental problem is? Or that a problem even exists? I absolutely agree with your sentiment, we would be better served advocating policies the majority of people are willing to accept. But sometimes the adults in the room need to stand up and do the right thing instead of the popular thing. So no, I'm not willing to compromise on the fundamental "excess carbon in our atmosphere is a hazard to our future existence.". Again, the "what should we do about it" is certainly open for debate, but you cannot have a constructive debate with someone who disagrees with what the problem is.
Reality and policy are inextricably connected. Someone who finds themselves annoyed by various taxation and zero agendas espoused by a political group they don't like is probably not going to sit around and dispassionately consider the facts to your satisfaction. The reaction you can expect will be closer to screw you and your little dog too. Denialism simply becomes the more expedient path to telling annoying people to take a hike.
The other issue is true believers have a track record of promulgating ter
Re: (Score:3)
There are only tradeoffs.
I agree.
How much pollution is acceptable.
Unless we agree on the foundational "continuing to add carbon to the system is a bad thing" that "tradeoff" conversation cannot take place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
By removing money from politics
I agree in context of Citizens United, that was catastrophically bad decision. However, how would you remove money from politics entirely? Money and political donations are not entirely the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
following the example of the Canadians would be a good start
Re: (Score:3)
how would you remove money from politics entirely
By starting somewhere. Undoing Citizens United would be a great place to start. From there, any dime a politician, or their proxy, takes in has an individual's name attached to its source. If there's a political ad being shown to the public every red cent that went into it has a name attached.
Re: (Score:3)
it's not going to be popular, and I'm mixed on it as well, but here goes:
Public Financing of Campaigns.
Re: (Score:3)
it's not going to be popular, and I'm mixed on it as well, but here goes:
Public Financing of Campaigns.
Add allowing individuals to donate for their representatives, and only for their representatives, with a inflation indexed limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is, to do this, you have to get it through Congress. Which you can't.
Before any clever ideas can be enacted to improve things, there's a much more fundamental problem to be solved - find a way to bring people together, to stop half the country hating the other half. Congress fairly well represents the people in this regard, and until something changes in the culture of t US society to take out the hate, nothing will change.
Until that happens, congress will remain completely divided and locked, and y
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is, to do this, you have to get it through Congress. Which you can't.
There is the 2/3rds of state legislature route but you'd face the same problem. Very few politicians would vote for something that would restrict their ability to raise campaign funds.
Before any clever ideas can be enacted to improve things, there's a much more fundamental problem to be solved - find a way to bring people together, to stop half the country hating the other half.
Bill Maher has been discussing this. He's willing to at least sit down and talk to anyone. But after he interviewed Kid Rock and had dinner with Trump for many he is now persona non grata. Why? Bill is a what I would call a old school liberal. From the other side is Charlie Kirk. Just mentioning his name will make people
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tricky one isn't it. I agree that constitual ammendment route is a non starter - it has all the same problems as do those nice clever ideas to just tweak the rules a bit, and it doesn't solve any of the real problems: half the countruy just really hates the other half.
For what it's worth it's the same here in Britain (although maybe to a slightly lesser degree). Half the country (broadly speaking: the rural, older, less-educated half) cannot stand the other half (younger, better educated, metropolita
Re: (Score:2)
By removing money from politics
I agree in context of Citizens United, that was catastrophically bad decision. However, how would you remove money from politics entirely? Money and political donations are not entirely the same thing.
How about if you can't vote for them then you can't contribute to their campaign in any way. No more PACS, no more out of state funding, just individuals for their own representatives. It would take an Amendment which means it ain't gonna happen.
Re: Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
You think the amount of other pollutants is not proportional to the amount of CO2 emitted???? What an idiot
Re: Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:4, Informative)
In a weird way, he does have a point. For example, catalytic converters convert soot (carbon), CO (which, while not a greenhouse gas, competes for OH which leads to more CH4 in the atmosphere) and hydrocarbons into CO2 and H20. Remove the catalytic converters and less CO2 will be emitted. Of course the soot, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are worse for our health, especially on a short timescale.
It also leaves NOx out of the equation. NOx is a worse greenhouse gas (300x) then CO2 as well as being bad for you in small quantities and catalytic converters also change that into N2 and O to combine with the carbon to make even more CO2.
So in summary, get rid of catalytic converters and less CO2 will be emitted. In exchange we will have more greenhouse gases as well as more toxic gases.
Re: (Score:3)
the repeal in question is just about CO2 not NOx , particulates or unburned hydrocarbons.
NBC grudgingly gets to it on TFA on a single line about 2/3rds down after several breathless paragraphs.
"""
The EPA will still regulate pollutants in tailpipe emissions that hamper air quality, such as carbon monoxide, lead and ozone.
"""
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure that's true anymore. It seems like most of the non Maga GOP member are retiring or otherwise leaving office.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please realize there is a difference between the GOP and MAGA.
List things they disagree on then.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:4, Insightful)
Was that a joke, or do you actually believe that? I mean, I'm not even going to argue the reality of, for example, how many birds they actually kill. Why bother when the notion that typical Republicans actually care about that stuff in the first place is a joke. For just this administration, they have eliminated $7 billion for the solar for all grant program, ended or reduced many types of renewable credits that apply to all types of renewables, slowed down issuing permits, cut the rural energy for america program, put huge tariffs on solar panels, and set the IRS against renewables businesses. Trump may have a bizarre fetish for slandering wind power, but he hates all renewables. Outside the Trump administration, republican politicians in Congress and at the state level are always going after renewables.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress wouldn't really change that, they've also been in the control of the anti-sciencers for long periods of time over the last 20-30 years, including right now.
The problem we have is political, not structural. There are good, good, arguments for dramatically reducing the executive's power in certain areas, and in particular making it less of a role people are excited to run for (I favor changing it to a triumvirate, with elections for one member every two years, and rotating responsibilities) but that'
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...or maybe "We the People" need to start doing our job instead of electing politicians that care more about their own power than they do about the future of America.
We only had the choice between bad and worse.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a good excuse to actively choose worse though.
Re: (Score:3)
No they don't. You're building up a strawman based on ignorance of idiots.The EPA hasn't taken any credit for things they don't do. They do however actively work in the area you are quoting some history about. No one gives a shit about the 70s. The EPA is the *current* driver of emission reduction, to the point that the auto makers took them to court to try and get the current emission rules overturned as they thought they were too onerous, and Trump actively campaigned on reversing the 2027 emissions rules
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:4, Informative)
And we somehow chose worse
Re: Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:2)
That is not true. There's no magical alien group who nominates candidates. We the People nominate them, and this is what We keep choosing
Convince your Boomer parents and Gen x buddies (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is you have to get people away from right-wing media and 90% of all media is now owned by billionaires.
On top of that it's not socially acceptable to point out that Republicans are bad. We have been conditioned for decades that partisan politics is a no no topic. We are all just supposed to pretend that both sides bad and all politicians lie.
I fucking wish the Democrats would go back to lying to me. Even Obama never lied I think the last Democrat who told me an honest to God lie is Bill Clinton.
Lies win elections. The Democrats stop fighting dirty when LBJ was out the door and they've been getting their asses kicked ever since.
Re:No because people are fools! (Score:2)
Fools don't learn. Half the bell curve are below average and Republicans learned to outsmart slow people (and the ignorant who can be functionally stupid by falling for blatant lies) and Republicans have mastered FOOLS. Fitting they have the Clown Fool of them all as a figurehead... who even has a painted face, wig like hair, baggy clothes, he's just missing the big red nose... but he has a big red tie.
Fools can't even spot a clown if you change the colors of the outfit...
People get the government that re
So they can learn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So let Congress debate and vote on it. Who's stopping them? Problem is that they have plenty of items on their plate, so until they address something, the executive is at liberty to make its decision. Let Congress debate that if it doesn't like what's happening
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say the same thing, if the pendulum swings the other way then whats the point? All it does is create waste.
Re: (Score:2)
BECAUSE IT STILL WORKS. THINK.
The operating costs even if temporary, force adaptation to optimize. Even tiny bumps will end up with a rainy day accounting to amortize them away; as business does or whole concept of insurance is founded upon.
Remove the rules you adapted to already? then you are still prepared and just have it easier and maybe make more money. It's coming back later so if you don't learn the "crisis" will repeat until you learn to adapt. Sure, it's best to not have corruption constantly ma
Re: Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:2)
At the end of the day, Congress should be legislating these types of regulations and not leaving it up the current person occupying the White House. They need to get it together and do their job...
No. They should be delegating the details to people that actually know their shit and are insulated from changing political winds to some degree. So people can do their fucking jobs, even if politicians don't like it. Like produce jobs statistics EVEN WHEN THEY'RE BAD. Because dividing up spectrum, managing water pollution, fiscal policy or countless other niches shouldn't take individual acts of Congress to achieve and shouldn't unpredictably change on the whims of every newly elected mini king.
They did do
Re: (Score:2)
No, the bureaucrats are not the people we elect. The Congressmen are. We don't elect technocrats either. If some expert in climate or industry or any other field of expertise wants their proposals to be codified into law, they should run for Congress, get elected and then persuade their colleagues. In the process, while running, they can explain to their constituents why they want to do what they want to do
SCOTUS heard these sort of arguments in the case known as the "Chevron Deference", and decided a
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Supply chains have already be rearranged. Typically, that costs something but also makes them better. Investments have been cancelled. And other factors. Part if what made the USD the reserve currency of choice was inertia. Major weapons deals have been cancelled.
So while the US may recover and get stable on a significantly lower trade level, the glory days are over.
Re: Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:2)
It does not matter if it was done by EO, ir repealed by EO. Things like USAID and CFPB were mandated by Congress. The current regime destroyed them anyway, sadly, with little pushback. We live in a post-constitutional society.
Re: (Score:3)
trump cant repeal a law on his own but nice try.
It wasn't a law, and that's the problem.
Don't worry (Score:1)
It will be restored with each new Democratic president, and removed again with each new Republican one, until/unless one party or the other codifies "their way" into law.
Re: (Score:1)
5% of the world's population. 100% of the hubris.
The USA is an unreliable business partner. International markets are being forced to sidestep the chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
5% of the world's population. 100% of the hubris.
Yeah, it's not like we ever hear hubris coming from any other country! /s
The US certainly generates an inordinate share of it - especially under the current administration - but unfortunately there's plenty of that crap that's regularly generated in pretty much every corner of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be restored with each new Democratic president, and removed again with each new Republican one, until/unless one party or the other codifies "their way" into law.
and hopefully what they codify is a reasonable middle path... neither "drill baby drill" nor "ban ICE sales by 2035"...
as much as I would hate more taxes (and the increased govt spending) and bueauricracy some kind of "carbon tax" or "global warming equivalent" tax that starts low so we can see what impacts it has would be the least distorting
Re: (Score:2)
A carbon consumption/emission fee that is rebated per capita (i.e. everyone gets the same payment) does exactly what is needed -- it helps people who can limit their carbon emissions below the national average, and it makes those emitting more than their fair share pay for the privilege.
Politically, this would be difficult but not impossible, especially if you front-loaded and gave people the payments first. Now they have the cash to pay the higher prices, unless they're emitting a lot of carbon. You woul
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. The feds giving tax money BACK to people to spend as they wish?! i'm not holding my breath for that one, but it COULD be done like a refundable tax credit or something. unfortunately even if they did the track record is to try to stick it to the middle class like with other perks that tend to evaporate as income goes up.
Also the prices are going to be mostly just an increase in prices of fuel (including planes), food, and goods. if it's at a low level or gradual increase it doesn't need front l
It's not 100% Re:Don't worry (Score:1)
It might be well over 99.5% though.
The world's heads-of-government make up most of the rest. But with less than 300 national heads-of-government and over 340 million Americans contributing to the world's hubris, it's easy to round to 100%.
Needs a new name (Score:5, Insightful)
It should now be called EDA, for Environmental Destruction Agency. Of course, that would necessitate new stationary, and the shredding or burning of the old stuff - an action which is perfectly aligned with their new mission.
Re:Needs a new name (Score:4, Insightful)
Because pollution always obeys state borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So the upwind state can spew pollution into a neighboring state? Brilliant!
Re: (Score:2)
The republicans have fought hard against any such thing, they do not want states to regulate pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not stop at international lines, either, but at least international lines are broader than state lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Supply vs Demand. It is the most populated state. It has a massive amount of urban sprawl that makes for an expensive transit system; commercial too. Mountains and hills all over.
Disasters are expensive. It's so bad that construction supplies world wide have been going on because of climate disasters. Insurance too. CA had this kind of problem longer than many and it's increasing. FL has people priced out of home insurance too.
CA is phasing out gas. Cost is a great way to force the issue. Supposedly Ame
Re: (Score:2)
The gas is expensive because the refiners keep shutting down refineries for "reasons" (the reason is that they want the price to increase in California so they can blame blends and otherwise lie to sheep like you).
Re: (Score:2)
The gas is expensive because the refiners keep shutting down refineries for "reasons" (the reason is that they want the price to increase in California so they can blame blends and otherwise lie to sheep like you).
The reason is that the refiners have run a risk analysis and they do not believe it is profitable to continue operations there. Old plants with high maintenance, lots of regulation, custom fuel blend just for that state, and a heavy push to get rid of ICE entirely. It ain't worth it.
I have no problem with this because that is what the people via their representatives have voted for.
Totally irrelevant rage-bait (Score:1)
All of those EPA rules and regulations were rendered worthless by Loper-Brght. This so-called repeal amounts to deleting a pdf from a government server, but it'll play well on Fox. The reality now is that the courts
Re: (Score:2)
Sad (Score:3)
no basis in fact? (Score:2)
you have no basis in fact.
seems 'hothouse Earth' will be a reality.
I support reversal (Score:2)
42 USC 7521:
"The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
In my view air pollution endangering public health is like inhaling lead, CO, mercury..etc which e
In practical terms... (Score:2)
What near-term tangible effect will this have on everyday life? No more paper drinking straws? No more constant bellyaching from our vehicles? Cats and dogs living together? My butt falling off?
Words are just words. Industry momentum is like stopping a freight train.
Re: (Score:2)
It merely removes the ability to regulate greenhouse gases on the pretext that they harm health.
This is the dumbest statement I've read today.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It merely removes the ability to regulate greenhouse gases on the pretext that they harm health.
This is the dumbest statement I've read today.
Well, idk why you think it's dumb because that's exactly what the change does.
And it returns things to 2008 level, (i.e all the smog, particulates, and acid rain stuff is still in place and still being tightened. so like DEF for diesels isn't going anywhere, for good or fire bad).
and CAFE (gas mileage stuff) is still in place and authorized by a different law on energy independence grounds.
CO2 and global warming are much more an economic issue than a "health" issue. Congress can pass a law
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 and global warming are much more an economic issue than a "health" issue.
Thank god the CEOs are alright.
Congress can pass a law on the subject with whatever heuristics and guard rails they want.
Congress gave these agencies power in the first place. It's only a problem now because the ruling class can straight up pay for favors.
Re: (Score:2)
he deregulated diesel a wile back. cafe was outed to. yep we can acully get new Japanese k-truck in the usa now.
not sure if serious... ... none of that is affected ) (his channel is pretty decent overall. i look forward to seeing more
the "hated" diesel regulations that require particulate filters and DEF are still in place. And there's no indication currently that anything that's been announced yet will do anything against them.
Here's a rather pro diesel dude, Freedom Worx, explaining "The TRUTH About EPA Diesel Deregulation... Are EGR, DPF, DEF Done? " https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (and the answer is "no"
Re: fake headline (Score:2)
Unfortunately, no. This is what Gemini says about California's rights to regulate emission. This new EPA finding repeal is at the core of the problem. The federal regime wants to prevent Cali from regulating its own air quality. Seems like this shouldn't be allowed under the 10th amendment. State should be allowed to regulate, if feds effectively give up their right to do so.
In recent months, California's authority to regulate greenhouse gases has faced a "perfect storm" of challenges from all three branche
Re: (Score:2)