Is rising global temperature alone a danger? Certainly not. Public health science clearly shows that extreme cold is far more dangerous than extreme heat. In either case, we have remedies, such as HVAC, insulated buildings, weather warnings, and clothing.
Climate alarmists claim that there is a secondary danger that Earth's mild rate of tropicalization is causing extreme weather to become more extreme, i.e., more frequent and more violent. But, as Dr. Pielke has demonstrated, scientific observations don't support that claim, and the IPCC has backed away from it. The new DOE report pretty much devastates that claim, and that includes the claim that coastal communities will be wiped out by rapidly rising flood waters due to melting polar glaciers. I would add that even if that happens, the danger would be to structures, not humans, who can easily move to higher ground.
Moreover, it is important to remember that most of the claims being made are supported by climate models, not hard data. Climate models are nothing more than mathematical expressions of scientific theories. Models and other theories are useful in advancing scientific discovery, but they must not be considered to be truthful until they have been validated by comparison of the claims to scientific observations. Moreover, if scientific observations do not match the claims or projections of theories or models, then the theories or models are false. That's the time-proven scientific method.
I contend that the extreme data presented in the public health studies and the DOE report pretty much devastates the claims of endangerment. And, if the BACT requirement has any legal validity, EPA might make the case that the best available technologies are time-proven adaptations that humans have developed to protect people from extreme weather: civil structures (e.g., dams and levees), irrigation, refrigeration, transportation, forest management, weather monitoring and warning systems, avoiding river and coastal flood plains, etc. The main reason that these are BACT is that they do not depend upon the cooperation of the entire human race, as does abandoning fossil energy. There is also the fact that CO2 is essential to human life.
In conclusion, I disagree that EPA must prove a negative. Legally speaking, the burden of proof would be on the intervenors who claim that GHG present a danger. The difficulty with that burden of proof is that the scientific observations must be able to prove that the devastation of a hurricane, etc., was caused by GHG and not other natural causes.
“That may defy common sense, but that is an issue for Congress, which has been known on occasion to author legislation that is insufficiently precise.”
An award for understatement warranted here.
My opinion, which has as much value as anyone else’s, is that eventually it will be recognized that additional CO2 in the atmosphere confers benefits far in excess of any negatives.
Roger points out that the Biden era IRA added clarifying language to the CAA specifying that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant. This issue was fully vetted in Francis Menton’s Manhattan Contrarian blog where the clear direction of FM and his community was that the BBB would need to reverse this language. FM, a retired Wall Street litigator, has been a primary mover attempting to reverse the Endangerment Finding through administrative filings for years. Your statement that in fact the BBB entrenched the IRA’s mischief is both distressing and perplexing. Why is it that the Democrats are so much better at achieving their legislative/regulatory goals than Republicans? For another instance see the $20B in gold bars shoved off the EPA Titanic to friends of Biden and the wokest of environmental activists in the post election period, apparently without legal recourse, to sustain them through the coming fallow period.
A somewhat analogous situation came up in 2009, when the EPA sought input on a review of "the current aquatic life criterion for marine pH to determine if a revision is warranted to protect the marine designated uses of States and Territories pursuant to Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act."
This was at a time when I was researching ocean acidification - the change in ocean pH and carbonate chemistry resulting from ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2. I was asked to provide a submission to the EPA consultation, and did so. Setting a "standard" was always going to be challenging because CO2 in seawater is a naturally-occurring constituent. Its background concentration, measured as Dissolved Inorganic Carbon or DIC (sum of CO2 + carbonate ion + bicarbonate ion) is relatively high in comparison to the "invasion" of anthropogenic CO2. Ambient surface seawater DIC in the open ocean sits at ~ 2000 micromoles/liter. The anthropogenic component is estimated as ~ 20 to 40 (-ish) micromoles/liter. So it's a few percent addition to the background DIC. But it can still represent a significant shift in pH and in the biologically-important concentrations of carbonate ion; important for marine calcifiers like corals and the planktonic foraminifera I was studying at the time.
The background information for the EPA inquiry even cited my team's paper in Nature Geoscience that had just come out that year, showing ocean acdification was already affecting calcification in foraminifera. (I suppose as an academic it's an honor to have your work cited in the Federal Register).
Also, seawater pH varies widely in time and space, and due to natural and anthropogenic drivers other than CO2 uptake. This is especially true in coastal waters. Finally there are a wide range of biological responses to added CO2 in seawater. So not all organisms are *necessarily* "harmed" by more CO2, and the resulting reduction in pH.
The EPA is fully justified in rewriting the Endangerment Finding Rule. Why? This is 2025, not 2007 when the SCOTUS ruled on Mass vs. EPA. Back then Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" was the "Crown Jewel" of the Alarmist narrative. Had the SCOTUS taken up the Endangerment Finding Rule after the Climate Gate revelations of December of 2009 , their ruling very likely would have been different.
In addition, the basis criteria of STANDING - a prerequisite for consideration by SCOTUS would have been less secure. Justice Stevens, I understand, was especially concerned as to whether MASS had STANDING. The phoney prediction of a three foot rise in Ocean level at Boston, supposedly caused by Anthropogenic Climate Change, was the key factor in his support for MASS. I suggest the readers of this Blog review Patrick J. Michaels book Climate Coup, Chapter one, Also Bernie Lewin's book Searching for the Catastrophic Signal, Chapters 15 &16, and Steven E. Koonin's book UNSETTLED, Chapters13-14.
The language on "effects" does not specify, but could include (and should include) beneficial effects. Bug spray would meet the criteria for "pollutant", but it has enormous benefits; from preventing allergic reactions from mosquito bites to preventing life altering lyme disease from ticks. I don't see anyone looking to ban bug spray.
With regard to CO2, there also needs to be some recognition that a) a certain amount exists naturally, b) below a certain level all life on earth ceases, and c) an increased level can have beneficial effects.
Based on the above, "effects" needs to be replaced with "net effects" to determine whether the overall effect of the "pollutant" is beneficial, harmful, or neither.
Environmentalism defined CO2 as a pollutant, not science. It effectively makes industrial creations and pollution moral equivalents. If nature were the only contributor of CO2, it would never be called a “pollutant”, no matter what its level or harm to life. CO2 as a pollutant is a smear implying man is polluted by nature and his moral value rests upon how much he pollutes. That’s par for the course for the environmentalists, but it’s frightening to witness agreement or such weak indignation from those who should know better.
RP - "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. The key word there is “shall.”
Also, the law is broad and unambiguous. Even so, it would be simple for Zeldin to say CO2 does not endanger public health or welfare, then let the ping pong game begin from one Administrator to the next. With Congress in perpetual gridlock is seems likely the current regulation will remain for the foreseeable future, which I always say is about two weeks.
Two lawyers would likely argue no endangerment. Menton who has so argued, unsuccessfully so far. And Childers who says ocean temperature is so dominant with respect to CO2 in the air that human breath and other sources may add but be insignificant (Hunga Tonga, 2022). Two scientists (Koutsoyiannis and Happer) posit that increases in ocean temperature lead increases in atmospheric CO2 chronologically, meaning ocean temperature is causal with respect to earth temperature, not CO2. And if ocean temperature overwhelms mankind's emissions what would be the point to regulating auto or cow emissions? And as other comments suggest, the Administrators in the US or UK have no control over emissions from China.
My current take on AGW is the same as mine on Covid. To wit..."As an American citizen, the fact I don’t know much about mRNA and gene function doesn’t absolve me from learning what I can, forming an opinion, and being willing to verbalize and vote on it. I may be wrong. I have been before. But my learning process holds for any subject of major human importance in America such as Anthropogenic Global Warming, 10 or 20 million illegal migrants entering the US, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Bitcoins or affordable housing." https://billpound.substack.com/p/speculation-regarding-covid?r=khw21
In year 2000 the United States' emissions of CO2 were 30% greater than the combined emissions of China and India. Today, the combined emissions from China and India are more than 3 times the U.S. emissions, and the gap grows every year.
This tidbit illustrates the reality that 80% of the world population live in countries which are unconcerned about greenhouse gases. (See Roger's Iron Rule.)
Even if CO2 were a pollutant, and even if CO2 were the climate control knob, whatever the U.S. does about emissions does not really matter globally.
The legalities need to be adjusted to fit realities.
Nice summary, Roger. Thanks for explaining the legal issues. You did a good framing of the law as it is. Most of the comments, and most Trump supporters, focus on what the law should be.
It might be more fruitful to focus on what can be done, given the law as it is. It seems to me that:
* Carbon dioxide can reasonably be considered a pollutant that can have some dangerous effects on public health or welfare.
* Therefore, the EPA is obligated to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
* Cancelling the endangerment finding is not really viable legally.
* Regulations are required to consider "best available control technology," taking account of cost effectiveness as well as technical feasibility.
* If there a regulatory approach to reverse current EPA requirements, it is to reconsider cost effectiveness of emissions control measures, in particular re-evaluating the Social Cost of Carbon used in making the determination.
Boring bureaucratic rule-making is probably the best approach to undoing the damage of previous bureaucratic rule-making. But it doesn't make for good theater.
In February 1973, Milton Friedman did an interview with Playboy. In that interview, they talked about a wide variety of things, including pollution. Here’s what Milton Friedman had to say:
“Even the most ardent environmentalist doesn’t really want to stop pollution. If he thinks about it and doesn’t just talk about it, he wants to have the right amount of pollution. We can’t really afford to eliminate it, not without abandoning all the benefits of technology that we not only enjoy, but on which we depend. So the answer is to allow only pollution that’s worth what it costs, and not any pollution that isn’t worth what it costs.”
Thomas Sowell has said, “There are no solutions, only trade-offs”.
The ideal level of pollution is not zero as that would eliminate all the benefits from most technologies. Zero pollution would make us all worse off.
So, if I understand well, as long as a Democrat-appointed EPA administrator with an obvious ideological agenda declares CO2 a “pollutant”, it will stay so in perpetuity, because the opposite can’t be scientifically proven. Seems like a deadly combination of bad legislation and (mis)use of science.
Is rising global temperature alone a danger? Certainly not. Public health science clearly shows that extreme cold is far more dangerous than extreme heat. In either case, we have remedies, such as HVAC, insulated buildings, weather warnings, and clothing.
Climate alarmists claim that there is a secondary danger that Earth's mild rate of tropicalization is causing extreme weather to become more extreme, i.e., more frequent and more violent. But, as Dr. Pielke has demonstrated, scientific observations don't support that claim, and the IPCC has backed away from it. The new DOE report pretty much devastates that claim, and that includes the claim that coastal communities will be wiped out by rapidly rising flood waters due to melting polar glaciers. I would add that even if that happens, the danger would be to structures, not humans, who can easily move to higher ground.
Moreover, it is important to remember that most of the claims being made are supported by climate models, not hard data. Climate models are nothing more than mathematical expressions of scientific theories. Models and other theories are useful in advancing scientific discovery, but they must not be considered to be truthful until they have been validated by comparison of the claims to scientific observations. Moreover, if scientific observations do not match the claims or projections of theories or models, then the theories or models are false. That's the time-proven scientific method.
I contend that the extreme data presented in the public health studies and the DOE report pretty much devastates the claims of endangerment. And, if the BACT requirement has any legal validity, EPA might make the case that the best available technologies are time-proven adaptations that humans have developed to protect people from extreme weather: civil structures (e.g., dams and levees), irrigation, refrigeration, transportation, forest management, weather monitoring and warning systems, avoiding river and coastal flood plains, etc. The main reason that these are BACT is that they do not depend upon the cooperation of the entire human race, as does abandoning fossil energy. There is also the fact that CO2 is essential to human life.
In conclusion, I disagree that EPA must prove a negative. Legally speaking, the burden of proof would be on the intervenors who claim that GHG present a danger. The difficulty with that burden of proof is that the scientific observations must be able to prove that the devastation of a hurricane, etc., was caused by GHG and not other natural causes.
“That may defy common sense, but that is an issue for Congress, which has been known on occasion to author legislation that is insufficiently precise.”
An award for understatement warranted here.
My opinion, which has as much value as anyone else’s, is that eventually it will be recognized that additional CO2 in the atmosphere confers benefits far in excess of any negatives.
Climate Change Science is never settled
The wildfires are arson, not from climate change: https://cctruth.org/wildfire/
https://rcmp.ca/en/manitoba/news/2025/05/manitoba-rcmp-make-two-arson-arrests-following-wildfires
https://www.ecosia.org/search?method=newtab&addon=chrome&addonversion=7.1.0&q=Rowena+Fire+arson+arests
https://www.koin.com/news/wildfires/alder-springs-fire-in-central-oregon-was-human-caused-officials-say/
https://rosedogbookstore.com/climate-crisis-changed-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-reports-are-deliberate-science-fiction-ebook-text/
arson fire
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/local/2025/07/09/salem-fire-grass-grass-structure-fire-southeast-salem/84525257007/
Because the high schools teach the fear mongering of the media and UN. Nothing they have said will happen has ever happened.
Trees release terpenes which induce rain.
The high school teach our published high-school textbook and the arson fires will stop.
Climate Change is about Fear mongering and removing people from the earth.
Roger points out that the Biden era IRA added clarifying language to the CAA specifying that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant. This issue was fully vetted in Francis Menton’s Manhattan Contrarian blog where the clear direction of FM and his community was that the BBB would need to reverse this language. FM, a retired Wall Street litigator, has been a primary mover attempting to reverse the Endangerment Finding through administrative filings for years. Your statement that in fact the BBB entrenched the IRA’s mischief is both distressing and perplexing. Why is it that the Democrats are so much better at achieving their legislative/regulatory goals than Republicans? For another instance see the $20B in gold bars shoved off the EPA Titanic to friends of Biden and the wokest of environmental activists in the post election period, apparently without legal recourse, to sustain them through the coming fallow period.
Climate Change Science is never settled
The wildfires are arson, not from climate change: https://cctruth.org/wildfire/
https://rcmp.ca/en/manitoba/news/2025/05/manitoba-rcmp-make-two-arson-arrests-following-wildfires
https://www.ecosia.org/search?method=newtab&addon=chrome&addonversion=7.1.0&q=Rowena+Fire+arson+arests
https://www.koin.com/news/wildfires/alder-springs-fire-in-central-oregon-was-human-caused-officials-say/
https://rosedogbookstore.com/climate-crisis-changed-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-reports-are-deliberate-science-fiction-ebook-text/
arson fire
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/local/2025/07/09/salem-fire-grass-grass-structure-fire-southeast-salem/84525257007/
Because the high schools teach the fear mongering of the media and UN. Nothing they have said will happen has ever happened.
Trees release terpenes which induce rain.
The high school teach our published high-school textbook and the arson fires will stop.
Climate Change is about Fear mongering and removing people from the earth.
Here's hoping. Best of luck to Administrator Zeldin.
Doomberg's latest on carbon counting in CA is the appropriate lens on what they would call the zeitgeist of that era, https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/tps-reports?r=toq84&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false.
Copy/paste posting is spamming
Once makes your point.
A somewhat analogous situation came up in 2009, when the EPA sought input on a review of "the current aquatic life criterion for marine pH to determine if a revision is warranted to protect the marine designated uses of States and Territories pursuant to Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act."
see: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/04/15/E9-8638/ocean-acidification-and-marine-ph-water-quality-criteria
This was at a time when I was researching ocean acidification - the change in ocean pH and carbonate chemistry resulting from ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2. I was asked to provide a submission to the EPA consultation, and did so. Setting a "standard" was always going to be challenging because CO2 in seawater is a naturally-occurring constituent. Its background concentration, measured as Dissolved Inorganic Carbon or DIC (sum of CO2 + carbonate ion + bicarbonate ion) is relatively high in comparison to the "invasion" of anthropogenic CO2. Ambient surface seawater DIC in the open ocean sits at ~ 2000 micromoles/liter. The anthropogenic component is estimated as ~ 20 to 40 (-ish) micromoles/liter. So it's a few percent addition to the background DIC. But it can still represent a significant shift in pH and in the biologically-important concentrations of carbonate ion; important for marine calcifiers like corals and the planktonic foraminifera I was studying at the time.
The background information for the EPA inquiry even cited my team's paper in Nature Geoscience that had just come out that year, showing ocean acdification was already affecting calcification in foraminifera. (I suppose as an academic it's an honor to have your work cited in the Federal Register).
Also, seawater pH varies widely in time and space, and due to natural and anthropogenic drivers other than CO2 uptake. This is especially true in coastal waters. Finally there are a wide range of biological responses to added CO2 in seawater. So not all organisms are *necessarily* "harmed" by more CO2, and the resulting reduction in pH.
Others may have more updated information on this than I do, but I don't think the EPA ever revised its criteria for pH (?). EPA criteria for marine pH appears to be the range published in 1986 https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table
EPA cant regulate greenhouse gases thelawisyourattorney.com.
Climate Change Science is never settled
The wildfires are arson, not from climate change: https://cctruth.org/wildfire/
https://rcmp.ca/en/manitoba/news/2025/05/manitoba-rcmp-make-two-arson-arrests-following-wildfires
https://www.ecosia.org/search?method=newtab&addon=chrome&addonversion=7.1.0&q=Rowena+Fire+arson+arests
https://www.koin.com/news/wildfires/alder-springs-fire-in-central-oregon-was-human-caused-officials-say/
https://rosedogbookstore.com/climate-crisis-changed-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-reports-are-deliberate-science-fiction-ebook-text/
arson fire
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/local/2025/07/09/salem-fire-grass-grass-structure-fire-southeast-salem/84525257007/
Because the high schools teach the fear mongering of the media and UN. Nothing they have said will happen has ever happened.
Trees release terpenes which induce rain.
The high school teach our published high-school textbook and the arson fires will stop.
Climate Change is about Fear mongering and removing people from the earth.
The EPA is fully justified in rewriting the Endangerment Finding Rule. Why? This is 2025, not 2007 when the SCOTUS ruled on Mass vs. EPA. Back then Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" was the "Crown Jewel" of the Alarmist narrative. Had the SCOTUS taken up the Endangerment Finding Rule after the Climate Gate revelations of December of 2009 , their ruling very likely would have been different.
In addition, the basis criteria of STANDING - a prerequisite for consideration by SCOTUS would have been less secure. Justice Stevens, I understand, was especially concerned as to whether MASS had STANDING. The phoney prediction of a three foot rise in Ocean level at Boston, supposedly caused by Anthropogenic Climate Change, was the key factor in his support for MASS. I suggest the readers of this Blog review Patrick J. Michaels book Climate Coup, Chapter one, Also Bernie Lewin's book Searching for the Catastrophic Signal, Chapters 15 &16, and Steven E. Koonin's book UNSETTLED, Chapters13-14.
Robert W. Street
EPA cant regulate greenhouse gases thelawisyourattorney.com.
Climate Change Science is never settled
The wildfires are arson, not from climate change: https://cctruth.org/wildfire/
https://rcmp.ca/en/manitoba/news/2025/05/manitoba-rcmp-make-two-arson-arrests-following-wildfires
https://www.ecosia.org/search?method=newtab&addon=chrome&addonversion=7.1.0&q=Rowena+Fire+arson+arests
https://www.koin.com/news/wildfires/alder-springs-fire-in-central-oregon-was-human-caused-officials-say/
https://rosedogbookstore.com/climate-crisis-changed-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-reports-are-deliberate-science-fiction-ebook-text/
arson fire
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/local/2025/07/09/salem-fire-grass-grass-structure-fire-southeast-salem/84525257007/
Because the high schools teach the fear mongering of the media and UN. Nothing they have said will happen has ever happened.
Trees release terpenes which induce rain.
The high school teach our published high-school textbook and the arson fires will stop.
Climate Change is about Fear mongering and removing people from the earth.
The language on "effects" does not specify, but could include (and should include) beneficial effects. Bug spray would meet the criteria for "pollutant", but it has enormous benefits; from preventing allergic reactions from mosquito bites to preventing life altering lyme disease from ticks. I don't see anyone looking to ban bug spray.
With regard to CO2, there also needs to be some recognition that a) a certain amount exists naturally, b) below a certain level all life on earth ceases, and c) an increased level can have beneficial effects.
Based on the above, "effects" needs to be replaced with "net effects" to determine whether the overall effect of the "pollutant" is beneficial, harmful, or neither.
Environmentalism defined CO2 as a pollutant, not science. It effectively makes industrial creations and pollution moral equivalents. If nature were the only contributor of CO2, it would never be called a “pollutant”, no matter what its level or harm to life. CO2 as a pollutant is a smear implying man is polluted by nature and his moral value rests upon how much he pollutes. That’s par for the course for the environmentalists, but it’s frightening to witness agreement or such weak indignation from those who should know better.
RP - "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. The key word there is “shall.”
Also, the law is broad and unambiguous. Even so, it would be simple for Zeldin to say CO2 does not endanger public health or welfare, then let the ping pong game begin from one Administrator to the next. With Congress in perpetual gridlock is seems likely the current regulation will remain for the foreseeable future, which I always say is about two weeks.
Two lawyers would likely argue no endangerment. Menton who has so argued, unsuccessfully so far. And Childers who says ocean temperature is so dominant with respect to CO2 in the air that human breath and other sources may add but be insignificant (Hunga Tonga, 2022). Two scientists (Koutsoyiannis and Happer) posit that increases in ocean temperature lead increases in atmospheric CO2 chronologically, meaning ocean temperature is causal with respect to earth temperature, not CO2. And if ocean temperature overwhelms mankind's emissions what would be the point to regulating auto or cow emissions? And as other comments suggest, the Administrators in the US or UK have no control over emissions from China.
My current take on AGW is the same as mine on Covid. To wit..."As an American citizen, the fact I don’t know much about mRNA and gene function doesn’t absolve me from learning what I can, forming an opinion, and being willing to verbalize and vote on it. I may be wrong. I have been before. But my learning process holds for any subject of major human importance in America such as Anthropogenic Global Warming, 10 or 20 million illegal migrants entering the US, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Bitcoins or affordable housing." https://billpound.substack.com/p/speculation-regarding-covid?r=khw21
In year 2000 the United States' emissions of CO2 were 30% greater than the combined emissions of China and India. Today, the combined emissions from China and India are more than 3 times the U.S. emissions, and the gap grows every year.
This tidbit illustrates the reality that 80% of the world population live in countries which are unconcerned about greenhouse gases. (See Roger's Iron Rule.)
Even if CO2 were a pollutant, and even if CO2 were the climate control knob, whatever the U.S. does about emissions does not really matter globally.
The legalities need to be adjusted to fit realities.
Nice summary, Roger. Thanks for explaining the legal issues. You did a good framing of the law as it is. Most of the comments, and most Trump supporters, focus on what the law should be.
It might be more fruitful to focus on what can be done, given the law as it is. It seems to me that:
* Carbon dioxide can reasonably be considered a pollutant that can have some dangerous effects on public health or welfare.
* Therefore, the EPA is obligated to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
* Cancelling the endangerment finding is not really viable legally.
* Regulations are required to consider "best available control technology," taking account of cost effectiveness as well as technical feasibility.
* If there a regulatory approach to reverse current EPA requirements, it is to reconsider cost effectiveness of emissions control measures, in particular re-evaluating the Social Cost of Carbon used in making the determination.
Boring bureaucratic rule-making is probably the best approach to undoing the damage of previous bureaucratic rule-making. But it doesn't make for good theater.
Two points:
1) The ideal concentration of all true atmospheric pollutants is ZERO! Set CO2 concentration to zero and life as we know it goes away.
2) Water is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and we aren't trying to regulate that.
In February 1973, Milton Friedman did an interview with Playboy. In that interview, they talked about a wide variety of things, including pollution. Here’s what Milton Friedman had to say:
“Even the most ardent environmentalist doesn’t really want to stop pollution. If he thinks about it and doesn’t just talk about it, he wants to have the right amount of pollution. We can’t really afford to eliminate it, not without abandoning all the benefits of technology that we not only enjoy, but on which we depend. So the answer is to allow only pollution that’s worth what it costs, and not any pollution that isn’t worth what it costs.”
Thomas Sowell has said, “There are no solutions, only trade-offs”.
The ideal level of pollution is not zero as that would eliminate all the benefits from most technologies. Zero pollution would make us all worse off.
Well writ! From all points of view - if we discard the extremists of all sides.
So, if I understand well, as long as a Democrat-appointed EPA administrator with an obvious ideological agenda declares CO2 a “pollutant”, it will stay so in perpetuity, because the opposite can’t be scientifically proven. Seems like a deadly combination of bad legislation and (mis)use of science.
Roy Spencer wrote a good summary entitled “Reasons Why Regulating CO2 Emissions Needs to be Reconsidered”.
I am hopeful the Supreme Court will do the prudent and logical thing and support the Trump admins effort to change this damaging rule.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/reasons-why-regulating-co2-emissions-needs-to-be-reconsidered/