Day: February 14, 2026

Holocene Glacier Records

Glacier length changes through time, they advance when the local climate around them is colder and retreat when it is warmer (Bray, 1968). Over century and greater time scales glacier length is considered a highly reliable indicator of both regional and worldwide warming trends according to Olga Solomina, Johannes Oerlemans, and the IPCC (Solomina et al., 2008), (Oerlemans, 2005) & (IPCC, 2001, pp. 127-130). While studying glacier lengths can illuminate long-term warming or cooling trends in glaciated areas is true, the idea that they can reveal hemisphere-wide or global climatic trends is somewhat speculative.

From Watts Up With That?

By Andy May

Glacier length changes through time, they advance when the local climate around them is colder and retreat when it is warmer (Bray, 1968). Over century and greater time scales glacier length is considered a highly reliable indicator of both regional and worldwide warming trends according to Olga Solomina, Johannes Oerlemans, and the IPCC (Solomina et al., 2008), (Oerlemans, 2005) & (IPCC, 2001, pp. 127-130). While studying glacier lengths can illuminate long-term warming or cooling trends in glaciated areas is true, the idea that they can reveal hemisphere-wide or global climatic trends is somewhat speculative.

Advancing and retreating glaciers leave evidence of their fluctuations in length in glacial till deposits called moraines. Glacier moraines are easily identified and are distinct from other sediments and sedimentary rocks because they contain angular boulders, and they are unsorted and unstratified. Olga Solomina and colleagues in a 2015 review article, note:

โ€œStudies of Holocene glacial geomorphic and sedimentological records provide the most direct means of determining the extent and timing of glacier oscillations. Until recently it has been dif๏ฌcult to de๏ฌne the ages of moraines in many regions because of the lack of appropriate dating techniques. Radiocarbon has been the most widely used and in some cases optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating has been implemented, but in most cases these can only be utilized to provide maximum and/or minimum ages on moraines by dating organic-rich deposits that are buried beneath moraines/tills, beyond the glacial limit (maximum ages), on top of moraines, or within the glacial limit (minimum ages). The development of terrestrial cosmogenic nuclide (TCN) dating, however, has provided a direct method of dating moraines and has led to a plethora of studies that are shedding new light on the nature of Holocene glacier ๏ฌ‚uctuations.โ€ (Solomina et al., 2015)

Dating Glacial Advances

The TCN (terrestrial cosmogenic nuclide) dating technique (Larsen et al., 2021) is uniquely suited to dating the maximum extent of glacial advance, prior to a retreat. It is a geochronological method used to determine the exposure age of materials on Earthโ€™s surface, such as rocks, sediments, or landforms. It works by measuring the concentration of rare isotopes (or more accurately nuclides, including isotopes of beryllium, chlorine and carbon) produced by interactions with cosmic rays. The nuclides accumulate over time and provide a โ€œclockโ€ for how long the material has been exposed to cosmic radiation. The technique is particularly valuable for dating Quaternary events from a few hundred years to several million years before present, depending on the nuclide and site conditions.

Target materials for TCN dating are large quartz rich boulders that have been ripped off bedrock by the glacier and lie exposed on a moraine crest. These would be very angular boulders that were not previously exposed until deposited in or on the glacial till. The TCN derived age identifies when the boulder was deposited and became stabilized on the top of the till. Factors that can interfere with accurate dating are significant erosion or long-term burial under ice and snow. Moraines are not a stable geological feature once deposited, especially if they are cored with ice. Boulders may shift with time and may contain nuclides from a previous exposure. Careful sampling and proper analysis of multiple boulders per site can usually detect, and sometimes correct, for these problems (Larsen et al., 2021).

Glacier advances and retreats are very long-term climate indicators. They are quite sensitive to small local changes in average temperature and can be dated accurately. They are most useful in detecting when a glacier changes from a long-term advance to a long-term retreat leaving a โ€œterminal moraine.โ€ A maximum retreat is harder to see, since subsequent advances often disrupt the terminal moraine of a retreat and boulders may contain nuclides accumulated during previous exposures (Larsen et al., 2021).

An Anthropogenic Warming Indicator?

Solomina, et al. believe that the current rate of glacier retreat is unusual and an indicator of anthropogenic warming. This is quite speculative due to the very short period of possible anthropogenic warming, roughly the past 70 years according to the IPCC (IPCC, 2021, p. 117). Since the world cooled from 1950 to ~1975, the period of warming is actually shorter, more like 50 years, and in the middle of this period, from 1998 to roughly 2013, there was another period of cooling (or at least a โ€œpauseโ€ in warming) which casts further doubt on the hypothesis that humans have significantly affected climate with their greenhouse gas emissions. For a summary of a discussion of the so-called โ€œhiatus in warmingโ€ by some prominent climate scientists see here.

Solomina et al. and the IPCC (IPCC, 2007b, p. 436) believe that the recent warming and the associated nearly global glacial retreat cannot be attributed to the same orbital causes as those present during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (or โ€œHCOโ€, see here, figure 4), so they must be due to human greenhouse emissions. It is true that Earthโ€™s orbital condition is different than during the HCO, but the choice of causes is not binary. The twentieth century contained the Modern Solar Maximum, the longest solar grand maximum in 2,000 (SN-S series) to 8,800 years (SN-L series) according to Usoskin et al. (Usoskin et al., 2007, Tables 2&3). Just because the orbital position has changed since the HCO does not mean that modern warming is due to human activities.

What is climate?

Climate is generally defined as the average or prevailing weather of an area over a long period of time, the minimum period to define climate is normally taken as 30 years, the โ€œareaโ€ described by the term is undefined. Thus, to measure a change in climate one must have two non-overlapping periods of greater than 30 years each to compare. Even 30 years may be too short since the very influential AMO weather cycle is 60-70 years long. Other significant long-term weather oscillations are discussed here. Glacier length records are good long-term climate indicators if the length changes are a small fraction of the total average glacier length. Glacier length changes are useful on century to multi-century times scales (Oerlemans, 2012). There are some rare glacial records that are accurate at decadal time scales, but these are usually short records, span only the last one or two millennia, and are concentrated in the Alps and Scandinavia. In other cases, claims of decadal resolution are belied by neighboring inconsistent glacier decadal records (Oerlemans, 2012). Another complication is that glaciers are rarely in equilibrium with their environment and the response time to changes in local climate can be hundreds of years for larger glaciers on gentle slopes (IPCC, 2021, p. 1278) & (Oerlemans, 2005).

How large an area is needed to define a โ€œclimate.โ€ This is a tough question, figure 1 suggests that climate changes are not uniform over the whole planet. The middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) march to their own drummer relative to the rest of the world and the same can be said of Antarctica and the Southern Hemispheric mid-latitudes (SH). I have often shown plots of the Rosenthal Makassar Strait and Vinther Greenland Holocene temperature reconstructions and believe that they represent climate changes in their immediate areas. But I doubt that plots of gridded or average hemisphere-wide or global temperature proxies mean very much, the term โ€œclimateโ€ just isnโ€™t well defined over such large areas.

Figure 1. Averaged temperature proxies by latitude slice; Antarctic (90S-60S), SH(60S-30S), Tropics(30S-30N), NH(30N-60N), and Arctic (60N-90N). For details seeย here. The three bands of numbers between -1.5 and -2ยฐC are top to bottom, the Northern Hemispheric, Tropical, and Southern Hemispheric glacier advances in the specified millennium per Solomina et al., 2015. When Northern Hemispheric glacier advances exceed 10, the number is bold and shaded in blue. My interpretation of the beginning and end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum, Mid-Holocene Transition, and the Neoglacial periods are shown along the bottom of the graph. For a discussion of the transition of the Sahara to a desert, seeย here.

Holocene Glacial Advances

Most glaciers have been retreating since the middle 19th century in the Northern Hemisphere and in some parts of the Southern Hemisphere but are still larger today than they were in the early and middle Holocene. Most glaciers reached their minimum Holocene extent between 8 kyrs and 6 kyrs (that is between 8,000 and 6,000 years ago). Subsequently glaciers expanded and reached their maximum Holocene extent between about 1500AD to 1850AD or so (IPCC, 2021, p. 345) & (Solomina et al., 2015). Importantly, most glaciers all over the world reached their maximum Holocene extent in the Little Ice Age, this includes all over the Northern and Southern Hemisphere and in the tropics. In figure 1 the maximum glacier advances peak between 1000AD and 2000AD for all regions. In Alaska, Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia, Central Europe, Russia, the tropics, and Antarctica glaciers were smaller than today during the Roman Warm Period, roughly 250BC to 400AD (Solomina et al., 2015, Fig. 2).

Short-term and recent glacial retreats often yield poor results with wide age scatter, so accurately measuring retreat rates from the major Little Ice Age (LIA) glacier advances is problematic and limited to the instrumental era (Oerlemans, 2005) & (Oerlemans, 2012). Glacier retreats are rarely clean; they are characterized by frequent re-advances that contaminate young fresh boulders with disturbed boulders from earlier retreats or advances yielding a wide scatter of dates. Thus, we probably will not know how the current rate of glacial retreat compares to past retreats for several hundred years, if at all.

Comparing Glacier Advances and Retreats to other temperature records

The elements of global and Northern Hemispheric temperature changes during the Holocene are generally agreed by most scientists. There was a very rapid rise in temperature after the Younger Dryas cold period around 9,700BC at the beginning of the Holocene (Walker et al., 2009), the warming peaked during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO) sometime before 3,500BC in the tropics and the Northern and Southern Hemisphere mid-latitudes (see here). It ended earlier in the Arctic and Antarctic, perhaps due to changes in obliquity that decreased insolation at the poles and increased it in the tropics (see here for a discussion).

After the end of the HCO, in the latitudes outside the polar regions around 4000BC, the Mid-Holocene Transition (MHT) period began. This was when the Sahara began to turn into a desert and temperatures declined (except in Antarctica) in a period called the Neoglacial into the Little Ice Age (LIA), the coldest period in the Holocene. Temperatures did not turn around and begin to warm until 1700 to 1850AD. The warming period after 1700AD is usually called the Modern Warm Period. The elements of the Holocene are identified in figure 1, the beginning and end of each period are approximate, since the transitions are gradual and do not occur synchronously across the globe.

Figure 1 plots latitude bounded temperature reconstructions using selected Holocene proxies from Marcottโ€™s (Marcott et al., 2013) global collection. The details of how each reconstruction was made are explained in a series of posts here. Iโ€™m not fond of reconstructions like these because they can be misleading. The curves in figure 1 are probably directionally correct, but they are very low resolution and not very accurate, so the temperature anomalies must not be taken literally. They will not show climatic events that are shorter than about 150 years and the temperature accuracy is no better than ยฑ0.5ยฐC. Variability in temperature is higher than shown, thus these proxies cannot be compared to modern instrumental measured temperatures, although they often are, see here for more details.

As discussed in my last post and here it is better to discuss climate in a local context than regionally (as in figure 1) or globally. In the last post I plotted Vintherโ€™s Greenland reconstruction and Rosenthalโ€™s Makassar Strait reconstruction, each represents a relatively small area, is reasonably accurate, and each has a temporal resolution of between 20 and 50 years, much better than the average Holocene temperature proxy resolution of 164 years (Kaufman et al., 2020b). The best way to compare today to the past is within local climate regimes. However, to study global climate changes, one must make large area reconstructions like those plotted in figure 1 and remember that their temporal resolution and accuracy are poor.

As figure 1 makes clear, climate changes, at least as defined by average temperature, differ a lot by latitude. The middle northern latitudes (โ€œNHโ€, 30N to 60N, black thick line in figure 1) stand out. NH, Antarctica, the Arctic, and the tropics warm faster in the early Holocene and the Southern Hemisphere (SH) warms later. Peak warming occurs late in the NH and SH and early in the Arctic and Antarctic. Temperatures drop early in the Antarctic and recover in the mid-Holocene Transition. During the Neoglacial period, prior to the Little Ice Age, most of the world oscillates around a fairly constant temperature or slightly declines as the NH temperature falls rapidly. After 1000AD temperatures fall in the Arctic, SH, and tropics, but rise in Antarctica. The tropics and the Arctic have two peak temperatures, one early in the Holocene and one during the mid-Holocene transition.

Glacial advances tell the same story. In figure 1, the three rows of numbers between -1.5 and -2 degrees are, top to bottom, the Northern Hemisphere, tropical, and Southern Hemisphere glacial advances as tabulated in Solomina, et al., 2015 in their table 2. I added the advances for each millennium. In Solomina et al.โ€™s table 2 the values summed are the first values only, I ignored the possible duplicates that follow the plus signs.

Scanning the glacial advance totals, we can see that before 7,000BC they are more numerous. Between 7,000BC and 2,000BC there are fewer advances. After 2,000BC, as the Bronze Age collapses into the Greek Dark Age, the number of advances increases until it peaks after 1,000AD. By far, the Little Ice Age (LIA) sees the most glacial advances in the Holocene Epoch.

Discussion and Conclusions

The poor resolution and inaccurate (but directionally correct) latitude slice temperature reconstructions plotted in figure 1 are supported in a qualitative way by Solomina et al.โ€™s glacial advance summary. The Holocene ITCZ shift that marks the beginning of the desertification of the Sahara falls at the second peak of the Antarctic, tropical, and Arctic records, as well as at the Southern Hemisphere peak Holocene temperature. Antarctica does not have a Little Ice Age anomaly, but all the other slices do, although they are not synchronous. The Northern Hemisphere Little Ice Age anomaly dwarfs those seen in the other slices. We read a lot about โ€œArctic amplificationโ€ but it is the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude temperature record that stands out at this scale.

The Little Ice Age glacial advances from 1,000 to 2,000AD are the maximum seen in all three regions (NH, T, and SH) in the entire Holocene. Given the time frame of glacial advance and retreat moraine preservation and detection, glacial advances cannot be used to support or disprove anthropogenic warming for at least another one-hundred years and probably longer. Figure 1 also suggests that the idea of โ€œglobal warming,โ€ that is a uniform rise in temperature due to changes in greenhouse gases over the whole globe synchronously, is not supported over the Holocene. Figure 2 shows that โ€œglobal warmingโ€ isnโ€™t even a good description of what is happening today.

Figure 2. Changes in gridded instrumental temperature over two time periods, 1900-1980 and 1981-2020 from the IPCC AR6 WG1 report, Figure 2.11B, page 316.

Figure 2 is from AR6 (IPCC, 2021, p. 316) and shows the warming globally from 1900-1980 (top map) and 1981-2020 (bottom map). Redish colors indicate warming and blue colors cooling. The xโ€™s indicate grid cells with an insignificant trend. White areas are areas with insufficient data. The bottom line is that the aerial coverage, especially in the Southern Hemisphere is poor and that many areas have cooled over the past century, not warmed. It cannot be said that glacier fluctuations support the idea of recent anthropogenic warming, and there is considerable doubt in the instrumental data as well.

Works Cited

Bray, J. R. (1968). Glaciation and Solar Activity since the Fifth Century BC and the solar cycle. Nature, 220. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/220672a0

IPCC. (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis [TAR]. New York: University Press. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf

IPCC. (2007b). WG1: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (AR4). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf

IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Pรฉan, S. Berger, . . . B. Zhou (Ed.)., WG1. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Kaufman, D., McKay, N., Routson, C., Erb, M., & Dรคtwyler, C. (2020b). A Global Database of Holocene Paleotemperature Records. Scientific Data, 7(201). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0530-7

Larsen, N. K., Sรธndergaard, A. S., Levy, L. B., Laursen, C. H., Bjรธrk, A. A., Kjeldsen, K. K., . . . Kjรฆr, K. H. (2021). Cosmogenic nuclide inheritance in Little Ice Age moraines โ€“ A case study from Greenland. Quaternary Geochronology, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2021.101200

Marcott, S. A., Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., & Mix, A. C. (2013, March 8). A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years. Science, 1198-1201. Retrieved from https://science.sciencemag.org/CONTENT/339/6124/1198.abstract

Oerlemans, J. (2005). Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records. Science, 308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107046

Oerlemans, J. (2012). Linear Modelling Of Glacier Length Fluctuations. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0459.2012.00469.x

Solomina, O. N., Bradley, R. S., Hodgson, D. A., Ivy-Ochs, S., Jomelli, V., Mackintosh, A. N., . . . Young, N. E. (2015). Holocene glacier fluctuations. Quaternary Science Reviews, 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.11.018

Solomina, O., Haeberli, W., Kull, C., & Wiles, G. (2008). Historical and Holocene glacierโ€“climate variations: General concepts and overview. Global and Planetary Change, 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.02.001

Tomkins, M. D., Dortch, J. M., Hughes, P. D., Huck, J. J., Pallร s, R., Rodรฉs, ร., . . . Rodrรญguez-Rodrรญguez, L. (2021). Moraine crest or slope: An analysis of the effects of boulder position on cosmogenic exposure age. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117092

Usoskin, I. G., Solanki, S. K., & Kovaltsov, G. A. (2007). Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 471(1), 301-309. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20077704

Walker, M., Johnsen, S., Rasmussen, U. O., Popp, T., Steffensen, J.-P., Gibbard, P., . . . Newnham, R. (2009). Formal de๏ฌnition and dating of the GSSP (Global Stratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holocene using the Greenland NGRIP ice core,and selected auxiliary records. Journal Of Quaternary Science, 24, 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1227

New York Times Solves Winter Mystery: Global Warming Freezes Your Face Off โ€“ Experts Baffled

The New York Timesย  discusses the ongoing extreme cold wave gripping much of the eastern United States since mid- January 2026, with record lows (e.g., 6ยฐF in New York City, -34ยฐF in parts of northern New York), prolonged below- normal temperatures (up to 30ยฐF below average in the Northeast), frozen rivers/lakes, and dangerous wind chills. It quotes MIT research scientist Judah Cohen, who links this to Arctic warming (from climate change): melting sea ice in areas like the Barents and Kara seas, plus heavy Siberian snowfall, adds heat to the atmosphere, disrupting the polar vortex.

The New York Timesย  discusses the ongoing extreme cold wave gripping much of the eastern United States since mid- January 2026, with record lows (e.g., 6ยฐF in New York City, -34ยฐF in parts of northern New York), prolonged below- normal temperatures (up to 30ยฐF below average in the Northeast), frozen rivers/lakes, and dangerous wind chills.

It quotes MIT research scientist Judah Cohen, who links this to Arctic warming (from climate change): melting sea ice in areas like the Barents and Kara seas, plus heavy Siberian snowfall, adds heat to the atmosphere, disrupting the polar vortex.

This causes it to stretch and wobble, displacing cold air southward and disrupting the jet stream, leading to extreme cold outbreaks in eastern North America.

Cohen notes the current stratospheric pattern is unusually “stuck” and expects the cold to persist through February.

If global temperatures are rising overall, why has this winter felt so brutally cold for so long?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From News Busters

By Joseph Vazquez

Apparently,ย The New York Timesย has snowflakes for brains as it struggled to find the climate change link in the blistering cold that has gripped the Eastern Seaboard.ย Timesย reporter Eric Niiler ran a ridiculous February 7 piece of propaganda disguised as news thatย was lacedย with a complete lack of self-awareness:

The headline? โ€œWhatโ€™s Up With This Big Freeze? Some Scientists See Climate Change Link.โ€

Niiler floated the possibility that โ€œA warming Arctic can stretch the polar vortex, a high-altitude air ribbon, one says. The โ€˜wobbleโ€™ can disrupt the jet stream, causing extreme cold in the East.โ€

At least in the 1970s-1980s, frigid temperatures were more narratively consistent with the โ€œGlobal Coolingโ€ angle, but this was just the latest textbook example of climate media activists trying to have their cake and eat it too. 

He was at least apparently aware of the glaring contradiction but still attempted to shoehorn some kind of logic into it anyway. โ€œIf the planet is getting warmer, why is it so cold this winter,โ€ Niiler pondered. โ€œThe seeming contradiction comes up often when talking to Judah Cohen, a research scientist at M.I.T. who has been studying how global warming might also be causing colder winters in the eastern United States.โ€ 

Recall the Great American Cold Wave of January 1985 that also swooshed across the eastern states for one of the โ€œmost intense arctic outbreaks of the 20th century?โ€ The interesting factoid was that frosty event also occurred during, er, winter. Shocking, right? The National Weather Service summarized then that โ€œExtremely cold temperatures affected every state east of the Rockies with three new state record lows established.โ€

The Times republished The Associated Press to report on that โ€œMajor Cold Snapโ€ along the following lines, โ€œTemperature records shattered like icicles yesterday from the upper Middle West to the Gulf states, as Arctic cold covered much of the United States.โ€  

Hereโ€™s the funny part: In May of that same year (1985), following the snap, The Times fear-mongered that โ€œBeginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps, raising the level of the seas, flooding coastal areas, eroding the shores and sending salt water far into fresh-water estuaries.โ€

But as JunkScience.com founder Steve Milloy pointed out February 1, โ€œ[A]t its 2025 summer minimum, the Arctic still had more than 5 million square kilometers of sea ice โ€” about the same as in 2007.โ€ In May 2025, the Antarctic ice sheet gained a record-shattering amount of ice between 2021 and 2023, reversing a trend of loss. 

Milloy slammed Niiler’s propaganda in comments to MRC Business. “Past the scientific impossibility of attributing past weather to emissions, climate hoaxers have yet to realize that they jump the shark with respect to public opinion and credibility when they blame cold weather on global warming,” Milloy stated. “There is no part of the emissions-driven global warming fantasy that includes colder weather. Every emission and more CO2 drives more warming everywhere all the time is their basic story.” 

Apparently, if we were to take Niilerโ€™s 180-degree spin, โ€œwarmingโ€ was also causing the reverse effect to happen too:

Climate warming in the Arctic is causing this disruption of the polar vortex, Dr. Cohen said. With more snowfall in Siberia and melting sea ice in the Barents and Kara seas, just north of Norway and Russia, the ocean is feeding more heat into the atmosphere, setting up a weather pattern that leads to a burst of extreme cold in North America.

Milloy took a blowtorch to this topsy-turvy logic:

Instead of just laying low from a tactical standpoint until the weather is warmer, they come out with nutty sounding headlines proclaiming global warming causes cold weather. They are literally insane as they have no awarenbess of how they hurt their own (ridiculous) cause.

Liquid โ†’ Solid vs. Solid โ†’ Liquid. Global Cooling or Global Warming? Heads I win, tails you lose? Either way, itโ€™s ManBearPig from South Parkโ€™s fault didnโ€™t ya know! 

Jeez, just pick one already!

Trump Administration Ends Obama-Era Climate Finding, Repeals Vehicle GHG Standards

On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin and alongside President Trump, finalized a major rule that revokes the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, a landmark Obama-era determination that greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide endanger public health and welfare. This finding had served as the legal foundation for federal regulations on GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, particularly for motor vehicles, but also influencing broader climate policies.

On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin and alongside President Trump, finalized a major rule that revokes the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, a landmark Obama-era determination that greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide endanger public health and welfare.

This finding had served as the legal foundation for federal regulations on GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, particularly for motor vehicles, but also influencing broader climate policies.

The 2009 finding concluded that six GHGs (including COโ‚‚, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.) from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.

It stemmed from the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which required the EPA to assess whether GHGs fit the Clean Air Act’s definition of pollutants.

This enabled subsequent rules like vehicle emission standards, tailpipe regulations, and aspects of power plant and industrial controls.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA Revokes Endangerment Finding: What You Need to Know

From The Institute for Energy Research

Kenny Stein

EPAโ€™s Regulatory Overreach on GHGs

The EPAโ€™s claim of authority over greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act effectively gives it control over nearly all human activityโ€”including respirationโ€”since GHGs are ubiquitous byproducts. This violates the major questions doctrine, which requires clear and explicit congressional authorization for such sweeping powers. No such authorization exists.

No Congressional Intent for Broad GHG Regulation

Congress designed the Clean Air Act to address toxic compounds and visible pollution, not greenhouse gases. Legislative history shows repeated rejection of broad GHG controls: failed cap-and-trade proposals, limited and later-weakened methane provisions, and separate laws targeting specific GHGs, like HFCs, all indicate that Congress deliberately excluded broad GHG regulation from the Clean Air Act.

Direct Conflict Between CAA and CAFE Standards

Regulating COโ‚‚ emissions from vehicle tailpipes under the Clean Air Act conflicts with Congressโ€™s separate Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which was created specifically to address fuel efficiency. The Clean Air Act was intended to address toxic emissions that can be reduced with add-on technologies such as catalytic converters, not to regulate inherent combustion byproducts such as COโ‚‚.

Flaws in the Massachusetts v. EPA Decision

The 2007 Supreme Court ruling interpreted the Clean Air Act to include greenhouse gases, but this broad reading is now contradicted by the major questions doctrine. The term โ€œpollutantโ€ in the Act should apply to substances causing direct toxic harm, not indirect climate effects from GHGs. Otherwise, the statute could absurdly extend to regulating water vapor or other natural byproducts.

Indirect and Speculative Nature of Claimed GHG Harms

Greenhouse gases do not directly harm human health. Any alleged harms are indirect, projected far into the future, and rest on climate model scenarios rather than clear, observed evidence of imminent danger beyond general temperature increases. Regulating based on potential future risks does not fit the Clean Air Actโ€™s framework for addressing immediate pollutants.

Weak Scientific Foundation for the Finding

The 2009 endangerment finding relies heavily on climate models driven by extreme, implausible emissions scenarios that overestimate future emissions and produce alarmist projections unsuitable for policymaking. The EPA should limit its analyses to more realistic and plausible emissions pathways for credible, policy-relevant assessments.

Rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding

The EPA is correct to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding to restore alignment with congressional intent and recent Supreme Court precedents. If greenhouse gas regulation is desired, Congressโ€”not the EPAโ€”must pass specific legislation clearly defining the authority, purpose, and objectives.

Read the Institute for Energy Researchโ€™s full comment on the Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards.

New York Times Gives Wind Turbines a Free Pass to Slaughter Birds

The American Bird Conservancy estimates that wind turbines kill between 700,000 and one million birds annually in the United States alone. Yet the industry is often granted quotas, i.e. literal licenses to kill. The matter is more concerning when these turbines are given a free hand in slaughtering species that are under concern or endangered, as acknowledged by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the worldโ€™s largest, most diverse environmental network.

From Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj


Last year, the New York Times ran โ€œ50 States, 50 Fixes,โ€ a sprawling series of articles purporting to offer solutions to environmental, especially climate, challenges across America. Writing for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, Iโ€™m challenging that series, one by one, demonstrating that many of the supposed environmental fixes cause their own environmental problems.

The article focusing on Illinois lamented the tragic deaths of birds colliding with McCormick Place and other high-rise buildings in Chicago.

The emotive article painted a grim picture of avian mortality in the concrete jungle. The concern for these creatures seems noble. Who among us does not grieve the loss of Godโ€™s creation? Yet this empathy exposes a rot at the heart of the modern environmental movement.

While the Times wrings its hands over glass facades in Chicago, it has spent two decades cheering for an industry that slices eagles and other birds, and bats, out of the sky with industrial efficiency. The newspaper of record is not merely inconsistent; it is complicit in a global slaughter. It demonizes skyscrapers while canonizing wind turbinesโ€”machines that have turned our skies into killing fields for the very species the author claims to cherish.

The Wind Industryโ€™s License to Kill

The American Bird Conservancy estimates that wind turbines kill between 700,000 and one million birds annually in the United States alone. Yet the industry is often granted quotas, i.e. literal licenses to kill.  The matter is more concerning when these turbines are given a free hand in slaughtering species that are under concern or endangered, as acknowledged by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the worldโ€™s largest, most diverse environmental network.

How does this happen? The enormous size of industrial wind turbines can be deceptive. At optimal speeds to generate electricity, about 10 to 20 revolutions per minute, their blades look as if theyโ€™re turning slowly. But their tips are moving at 180 to 200 miles per hourโ€”too fast for birds to avoid.

Consider the iconic American golden eagle, a species of high conservation concern. From 2013 to 2024, golden eagle mortalities from wind turbines more than doubled, rising from 110 to 270 annually.

In 2022, ESI Energy, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges after its turbines killed at least 150 eagles. Most of these majestic birds were hacked apart by turbine blades. The company agreed to spend up to $27 million on measures to prevent further deaths, but only after being forced by the courts.

They are not alone. Duke Energy pleaded guilty to killing 14 golden eagles and was forced to pay fines. PacifiCorp was fined $2.5 million for 38 golden eagle deaths. These are not isolated accidents. They are the cost of doing business in the green economy.

Researchers warn that if the current growth rate of the wind industry continues, it will have devastating implications for raptor populations. The hazardous volume for these birds in lower- and higher-risk zones increased by 198 percent and 119 percent, respectively, over the same period.

A systematic review of 84 peer-reviewed onshore wind studies, covering 160 specific cases, reveals a catastrophic disruption of wildlife. Published in Biological Conservation, the study reports displacement in most cases: 63 percent of bird populations, 72 percent of bats, and 67 percent of mammals were driven from their habitats. Some species were displaced up to several kilometres from the turbines.

A 2025 study reveals that โ€œWind and solar farms overlap with the distribution ranges of 2,310 threatened amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles, accounting for 36.3% of the worldโ€™s 6,362 threatened vertebrate species.โ€

Why weep for a sparrow hitting a window in Chicago but ignore the eagle severed by a blade in Wyoming or the 6,362 species endangered by renewable energy sources?

The answer, surprisingly, lies in theology. Modern environmentalism has become a secular religion. In this worldview, โ€œClimate Changeโ€ is the original sin, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the demon. To exorcise this demon, the alarmists demand sacrifices. They are willing to offer up the very wildlife they claim to love at the altar of renewable energy. This is idolatry.

But hereโ€™s the truth: Since the 1800s, our planet has gotten a lot greener! Mild warming combined with higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has boosted plant growth and leaf cover across huge areas of the Earth. Crop yields have broken records. Deserts are shrinking. The very CO2 they blame has helped the birds thrive.

Yet the Times and their ilk reject this truth. They prefer a narrative of doom. They push for unreliable wind energy that destabilizes grids, raises electricity prices for the poor, and slaughters millions of birds and bats. They call this โ€œsaving the planet.โ€ I call it a lie.
They will never question the wind industry, because that industry is the sacrament of their false climate religion.

We must reject this hypocrisy. True stewardship means looking at the data without ideological blinders. It means acknowledging that wind turbines are apex predators of the sky. It means admitting that the push for โ€œNet Zeroโ€ is causing real, tangible harm to biodiversity.

Donโ€™t get me wrong, the Chicago birds deserve attention. So do the birds being murdered around the world. Moral consistency demands faithfulness in both cases. Until the Times confronts that inconsistency, its environmental concern remains performative.

Vijay Jayaraj is Research Associate for Developing Countries with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition. He holds a M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, postgraduate degree in Energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a B.S. in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research assistant at University of British Columbiaโ€™s Changing Oceans Research Unit in Canada.

El Niรฑo weather aspects: Summer, the hurricane season, and next winter

The forecast calling for an El Niรฑo makes sense in the context of the natural cycle of these events. But weโ€™re in a different world now, with oceans unusually warm nearly everywhere. The previous El Niรฑo should be a wake-up call that the atmosphereโ€™s response is no longer behaving the same way.

Palm tree on windy weather. Hurricane in Miami south beach, Florida. Palm tree in hurricane weather. Tropical beach in Miami. Tropical windy weather with palm tree. Strong wind. Exotic nature.

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

The forecast calling for an El Niรฑo makes sense in the context of the natural cycle of these events. But weโ€™re in a different world now, with oceans unusually warm nearly everywhere. The previous El Niรฑo should be a wake-up call that the atmosphereโ€™s response is no longer behaving the same way.

How is it that the El Niรฑo never fully showed up in the longest-running measure of these eventsโ€”the SOIโ€”where winter values were below the threshold? Even in the gold standard for coupled ENSO events, the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), it registered only as weak to moderate, yet it was classified as a strong El Niรฑo based on the Niรฑo 3.4 region (or ONI). We should examine that closely to set the stage for the current developing El Niรฑo.

The fact that the SOI did not record a 3-month running average below -8 during the winterโ€”despite the eventโ€™s overall intensityโ€”was remarkable. This occurred because of a sudden warming of the waters by nearly 5ยฐC in just two months to the east of Australia, an unprecedented development. This warming was later attributed to increased underwater volcanic activity in the South Pacific, with our old friend Hunga Tongaโ€“Hunga Hualapai likely releasing tremendous amounts of heat into the oceanโ€”though without a major subaerial explosion like its initial eruption. This has been a significant factor in global climate and weather patterns overall and may still be exerting an influence today.

In November of 2023, with the SOI actually in El Niรฑo territory, SST looks like this

The configuration in the tropical Pacific of a warm tongue with cold water around Australia was not unlike the normal, though even here the rest of the oceans had warmed dramatically over the past 35 years from the means

But that configuration is crucial to the MJO. Cold water around Australia blunts the advance of the MJO into the phases that lead to a warm winter, 4,5,6,7

It supports higher pressure around Australia, which leads to a lowering of the SOI ( a measure of the standard deviation of Sea level pressure between Darwin and Tahiti). When pressures are higher to the west, the easterlies are forced to slow, and so there is more convergence in the phase 8/1 areas.

But what occurred was shocking. The water warmed close to 5 ยฐC. This cannot be solar. It cannot be CO2. It had to be a cumulative build of heat due to the ring of fire underwater volcanoes. with a sudden increase in input. And if you do not know it occurring you are helpless to react as a forecaster till too late

Here is the anomaly change in temperature from November to January

notice little change in the El Niรฑo area, but all around Australia

So instead of what looked like a setup for a cold, stormy winter, perhaps like 09-10 with a western NAMER ridge, positives over the pole, and a wonderful negative Western Pacific Oscillation

We get this

The positive further south, a HORRIBLE western Pacific oscillation, and a forecast that is blown out of the water

The reason. Unprecedented warming most likely from Geothermal input.

How important are those factors, by the way?

Look at the last 20 days

Basically, it looked like the model for that winter that got blown out of the water

So letโ€™s look at forecast aspects this year. The hurricane season, the summer, and next winter

Hurricane season:

The only model all the way out to hurricane season with the El Niรฑo is the Canadian

It has a moderate event, as do the other models, and the extreme warmth of water in the Atlantic subtropics. This highly favors what storms there are, to stay out at sea, but even with that, some can get back to land, as in the analog season I have defined below.

The 2023 hurricane season

This is different from 2023. Itโ€™s a Modoki El Niรฑo. Itโ€™s similar in nature to the more active seasons of 2004,1969.

If we adjust the SST to todayโ€™s values, we can see that

The Atlantic configuration, though, is more like 2023, so a blend of the 3 years, 2023,2004,1969  is what I am currently thinking

So the number is 17-21 total storms

8-10 hurricanes

3-5 majors

Landfalling hurricanes 1-3

Major landfalls 1 or 2

ACE Index 140-180

Summer Speculation

The modeling is not liking a hot summer for the US. The warmest of the modeling is the European, which is based on 1993-2016 climo data, but it certainly hints of less than a torrid summer

The Canadian is cooler

Last 10 days of runs of CFSV2 are cool

The 10-year means have looked like this

and wet in the south and east

The Euro for the summer in precipitation is between the US CFSV2, which looks way too wet in the north

and the Canadian which looks way too wet in the gulf.

So the Euro makes most sense to me in the Gulf and Caribbean, especially with an El Niรฑo

But it would be a great summer for agriculture and a reversal of the very dry conditions we have had this winter.

So out of the past 10 years looks 2nd to fourth coolest, with another great growing season rain-wise. Deep South Texas may still be a problem, though.

Nex Winter:

image.gif

There was a day when weak to moderate El Niรฑos after a La Niรฑa were loved by winter weather lovers. But the last 3 have not panned out, though we did get a great winter month in Jan 2016, and the last time it hit 0 in NYC was in the El Niรฑo of 2016.. But even that winter was warm overall, 23-24 only had January with some cold, and 18-19 was theโ€ La Ninaโ€ El Niรฑo winter, similar to 51-52, where it was cold where it was supposed to be warm and warm where it was supposed to be cold.

But there have been some great bounce-back winters also

2002-2003,2009-2010,2014-2015

The only model out that far is the Canadian

with a modokie look. While the water is warm around Australia, it is cooler than the center of the El Niรฑo.  So we may have a better Madden Julian Oscillation signal.   We have a lot of warm water in the NE Pacific, which is a cold signal. It has some cold water off New England, though not as cold as this year was

So, for now, the outlook for a threat of a cold winter is acceptable for much of the northern US. I would suspect more cold into the Southeast though

It shows the threat of blocking over the top and the Alaska ridge, so the gut call is for a colder than normal winter next year

And with it, fun, fun, fun with winter storms.

New York Climate Act Issues

The Climate Act established a New York โ€œNet Zeroโ€ target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.ย  Among its interim 2030 targets is a reduction target of 40% less GHG emissions and a 70% renewable energy electricity mandate.ย 

From Watts Up With That?

By Roger Caiazza

I was recently asked to give a briefing about Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) issues before the start of the New York legislative annual session.  There are Climate Act issues that Governor Hochul and the Legislature should address because the issues outlined in this article can no longer be ignored.

Climate Act Implementation Schedule

The Climate Act established a New York โ€œNet Zeroโ€ target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  Among its interim 2030 targets is a reduction target of 40% less GHG emissions and a 70% renewable energy electricity mandate. 

It is no longer debatable that New York has fallen behind on its Climate Act transition plan 2030 mandates.  The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) annual load and capacity data report universally known as the โ€œGold Bookโ€ data over the last six years is shown in Table 1. 

Table 1: NYISO Gold Book Annual Total and Renewable Summer Capability and Generation

There is supposed to be a 40% reduction in economyโ€‘wide GHG emissions by 2030.  I reviewed the 2025 NYS GHG Emission Inventory Report in my article Implications of New York State 2025 GHG Emissions Inventory.  I found that GHG emissions through 2023 are 14% less than the 1990 baseline and emissions have been basically unchanged since 2022. That makes meeting 2030 GHG emission reduction target of a 40% reduction impossible. 

Affordability and Rate Impacts

New York currently has an energy affordability crisis because as of December 2024, over 1.3 million households are behind on their energy bills by sixty-days-or-more, collectively owing more than $1.8 billion.  Kris Martin published a recent post that included a table ratepayer impacts. Table 2 summarizes recent electric rate cases (Con Edison, National Grid, Central Hudson, O&R, NYSEG, and RG&E with an estimate of the Climate Act proportion.

Table 2: Typical 2024 Residential Electric Costs from What it costs

Department of Public Service (DPS) staff provides estimates of the impact of the Climate Act on electric rates.  The Second Informational Report โ€œincludes the estimated costs and outcomes from 2023 through 2029 to provide the most up to date information.โ€  According to the Summary of Ratepayer Impact for Electric Utilities table, residential impacts of the Climate Act range from 4.6% to 10.3% of 2023 total monthly electric bills. 

In my opinion, those estimates are conservative because there is immense pressure on agency staff to minimize the costs of the Climate Act.  In addition, the costs necessary to implement the Climate Act were ramping up in 2023.  I expect that these costs will continue to climb.  Kris Martin also noted that the DPS estimates for future costs donโ€™t include all the Renewable Energy Credits (REC) and OREC (offshore wind REC) costs that would be required to reach Climate Act targetsโ€”or even what they might realistically expect to complete. 

All these analyses have focused on utility rate case costs. The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSEDA) has not been forthcoming about total household costs but did offer a glimpse of those costs in the State Energy Plan as described in my post Energy Affordability Fact Sheet.  NYERDA claimed that the use of โ€œnew, efficient equipment and electrification can cut energy spending by $100 to $300 every month for many New York householdsโ€ in the Fact Sheet.  However, these projections do not cover the costs of the equipment to make the reductions.  Table 3 is derived from the NYSERDA supporting documentation and shows the monthly energy costs when equipment costs are included.

Table 3: Total Monthly Energy Costs Including Levelized Equipment Costs for an Upstate New York moderate income household that uses natural gas for heat projected monthly costs and hardware costs

When the costs of equipment are added, the story changes.  Rows 1-5 in Table 3 list monthly energy costs.  Rows 6-8 list the levelized cost for the equipment needed to produce the savings. Row totals all the costs. The cost of Climate Act compliance is the difference between replacement of conventional equipment and the highly efficient electrification equipment in  Row 10.   There is a $594 (43%)  increase in costs necessary for Climate Act compliance.

NYSERDAโ€™s messaging for these results is that costs are going to go up anyway and that the increase in costs due to the Climate Act are small in comparison.  I think that additional costs will add more households to the already unacceptable number living in energy poverty.

Capโ€‘andโ€‘Invest and GHG Regulatory Architecture

There are two aspects of the Climate Act mandate to implement an economy-wide cap-and-invest program by January 1, 2024 that must be addressed by the Legislature and Governor Hochul.   I have described the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) regulations in many articles.  Currently DEC has only finalized the Mandatory GHG Emissions Reporting Rule.  There have been no suggestions when the two other necessary regulations will be proposed.  The Cap-and-Invest Rule will define affected sources, binding caps, and allowance allocations.  DEC also needs an auction rule that implements the auction that will be used to distribute allowances.

This is problematic.  On 3/31/25 a group of environmental advocates filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 alleging that DEC had failed to comply with the timeframe for NYCI because DEC missed the January 1, 2024 date.  I explained that the decision on the petition stated: DEC must โ€œpromulgate rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the statewide missed statutory deadlines and ordered DEC to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026 or go to the Legislature and get the Climate Act 2030 GHG reduction mandate schedule changed.  On 11/24/25 DEC appealed the decision.  The State has appealed to the Appellate Division.   This means that the deadline of Feb 6 is suspended until the Appellate Division rules.  Therefore, the State has no risk of being held in contempt and can safely ignore the deadline โ€” which appears to be what is happening.   However, kicking the can down the road ignores the responsibility to reconsider what is obviously a failed prescription for energy policy.

The other NYCI issue is the DEC regulations.  The Mandatory GHG Emissions Reporting Rule was finalized December 1, 2025, but is so poorly written that I would not be surprised if it gets litigated.  The auction rule regulation should not be an issue.  However, the Cap-and-Invest Rule includes non-trivial problems that have political consequences.  The rule will set the price trajectory for the costs of an allowance is certain to be controversial.  The biggest DEC NYCI issue is the timing.  When will DEC propose these rules?

PSL 66-P Safety Valve

There is another important issue that must be resolved.  Climate Act proponents constantly state that the mandates are required by law no matter what, but then ignore the other associated law that includes safety valve provisions.  New York Public Service Law ยง 66-p โ€œrenewable energy systemsโ€ mandates define which generating sources are โ€œrenewableโ€.  Section 66-p (4) โ€œEstablishment of a renewable energy programโ€ states: โ€œThe commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the programโ€. 

Unfortunately, the PSC has not yet considered conducting a hearing.  Two petitions have been filed calling for such a hearing.  The Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy filing on 1/6/26 made a persuasive argument that there are sufficient observed threats to reliability that a hearing is necessary to ensure safe and adequate service.  On 8/12/25 the Independent Intervenors filing argued that there were affordability and reliability issues and that there was an explicit requirement for the hearing because the customers in arrears threshold has been exceeded

On 1/28/26 the Public Service Commission issued a notice soliciting comments regarding the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy petition.  Comments on the Coalition petition are due on 3/30/26. 

GHG Emission Accounting

There is another issue in the local news.  In early February the Governor said that she is specifically interested in reconsidering the methodology by which the state tallies its emissions, explaining that New Yorkโ€™s unique 20-year metric puts the state at a disadvantage over other states that use a 100-year methodology to count their emissions. At the time the Climate Act was written it incorporated unique emissions accounting requirements that inflate the emission totals by increasing the effect of methane pollution. In my opinion, this irrational obsession with methane is misguided because in the atmosphere, methane has less of an effect than CO2 on global warming.  In the 2023 Budget Season this change to the accounting methodology was proposed because it would reduce total GHG emissions and that would lower costs when NYCI starts.  It did not go forward because of intense blowback from climate activists.

Conclusion

I have previously noted that decisions about the future of the Climate Act must be addressed.  The ideologues who fervently supported the promulgation of the Climate Act also zealously reject the possibility that changes are needed.  However, reality can no longer be ignored.  For example, David Wojick recently described his report โ€œSevere Climate Act impacts threaten New York Stateโ€ that provides additional support explaining why action is needed.

There are significant Climate Act issues that must be addressed.  Most targets are behind schedule, and the increased costs of the Climate Act will exacerbate the existing energy affordability crisis.  DEC needs to respond to the New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) economy wide emission reduction initiative requirements and will have to eventually respond to the litigation.  PSC must address safety valve provisions of PSL 66-P. 

Unfortunately, to be resolved all these Climate Act issues require political accountability.  The Climate Act has always been about political pandering to specific constituencies under the guise of saving the planet.  Therefore, I expect that all the inconvenient issues described will be ignored until after the election in hopes that the electorate will not catch on that the reliability of the stateโ€™s energy system is at risk and the energy system cost crisis will be aggravated by the Climate Act  for political gain.

New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990.  Implementing the Climate Act will have no effect on global warming and the purported co-benefits are illusory. 

I doubt that the Legislature or Governor will act on these issues this year as they try to balance the preferences of those who deny reality by demanding no changes to the Climate Act and the rest of society who cannot afford more energy costs. It is time for the rest of us to demand that the PSC conduct a hearing to consider suspending or modifying the obligations of the Climate Act by submitting comments on the Coalition petition. 

References

This article is based on a post on my blog.  I have provided links to the Slide Deck for my briefing and a link to the documentation if you want more details,

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.

The Last Foolย Standing

So, Donald Trumpย plans to reverse the โ€œendangerment findingโ€ย that underpins most climate-related regulation in America. This is further proof that Britain is being increasingly left behind by a global rush to dismantle the climate scare.

Ed Miliband is now almost alone in accelerating towards decarbonisation. Even if you think he is brave to jump out of the trench and go over the top, you have to admit it makes no sense to go alone.

A man animatedly speaking into a microphone with a surprised expression, captioned 'I am Mad Miliband - The Last Fool Standing', in front of a backdrop that reads 'BRITAIN'.

By Paul Homewood

h/t Doug Brodie

 Matt Ridley in the Telegraph:

Opinion article titled 'Ed Miliband is the last fool standing on net zero' by Matt Ridley, published on The Telegraph on 12 February 2026.

So, Donald Trumpย plans to reverse the โ€œendangerment findingโ€ย that underpins most climate-related regulation in America. This is further proof that Britain is being increasingly left behind by a global rush to dismantle the climate scare.

Ed Miliband is now almost alone in accelerating towards decarbonisation. Even if you think he is brave to jump out of the trench and go over the top, you have to admit it makes no sense to go alone.

Step outside Britain and you realise just how isolated we are becoming on climate policy. America is abandoning most of its climate change subsidies and rules. Stellantis, formerly known as Chrysler, is the latest car manufacturer to take a massive write-down as itย backs out of trying to switch to electric cars.

The AI industry is embracing gas-fired power to quench its insatiable thirst for electricity. The oil industry is abandoning renewables. The finance industry has disbanded many of its climate initiatives. Even the Democrat party has stopped talking about climate. China and India are building coal plants galore. Europe is watering down its climate targets.

We are soon going to be the only soldier still charging across no-manโ€™s land towards the enemy. Everyone else is safely back in the trench. To put it another way, the effects of carbon dioxide on the world are going to happen anyway so we would be better off adapting to them than trying to reduce our own contribution. About 99.2 per cent of global emissions originate outside Britain, so what we do here has almost no effect.

For years, people like me were told that we did not understand. Britain was setting an example to the world, you see. We had a duty to lead and if we got to net zero first, we would reap rich rewards selling the dream to those who followed. Instead, we find ourselves dependent on imported gas and oil and relying on unreliable wind and solar power. We are thus saddled withย stratospherically high electricity prices, ensuring that we will largely miss out on the real economic opportunities of the late 2020s: in artificial intelligence.

In seeking to persuade us that carbon dioxide was a danger, Britain cooked the scientific books. The technical term for the net harm done by carbon dioxide is the โ€œsocial cost of carbonโ€. But if youย look up the Governmentโ€™s position, it says โ€œcarbon valuation for policy appraisal no longer uses the social cost of carbonโ€. The reason for this is that however hard they tried, economists could not make the social cost of carbon greater than the social cost of decarbonisation. So instead, they just decided to cut emissions at any cost.

Likewise, the endangerment finding was a politically motivated action by the Environmental Protection Agency under Barack Obama. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could consider carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.

This gave it the green light to deem carbon dioxide a danger to public health โ€“ despite CO2 being an odourless, invisible, non-toxic plant food produced by human lungs at far higher concentrations than found in normal air. If itโ€™s a danger, then so is dihydrogen monoxide, which regularly kills people (i.e., H2O).

Scientifically, the only justification for the endangerment finding was that a child in Chad, say, might die of heat stroke in 50 yearsโ€™ time as a result of carbon dioxide-induced global warming. But that makes no sense when we know that the same child might not die of starvation today as a result of carbon dioxide-induced global greening โ€“ an effect that has increased crop yields and goat fodder by roughly 15-20 per cent in 40 years.

Mr Miliband take note: unilateral economic disarmament never makes sense.

Ed Miliband is the last fool standing on net zero – Yahoo News UK

This is what Matt is talking about:

Header of a policy paper from the UK Departments for Energy Security and Business, detailing the valuation of greenhouse gas emissions for policy appraisal and evaluation, published on 2 September 2021.
Valuation of greenhouse gas emissions: for policy appraisal and evaluation – GOV.UK

Prior to 2021, the Government used carbon values based on โ€œthe monetary value society placesโ€ on CO emissions:

Text explaining carbon values and their importance in valuing greenhouse gas emissions impacts from policy interventions.

And these carbon values were used in cost-benefit analysis for government policy decisions:

Text discussing the valuation of GHG emissions impacts from government policies and their effect on societal welfare.

In 2021, this policy was changed:

Text discussing the valuation approach for new carbon values based on Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) and its alignment with UK and international targets.

IIn short, to achieve Net Zero, carbon values would have to set high enough to offset โ€œmarginal abatement costsโ€.

Without this change, most of the actions required to hit Net Zero would not pass any Cost-Benefit Analysis.

A clown wearing a colorful outfit and makeup, holding a microphone and smiling broadly while speaking, with a speech bubble that says 'I am Mad Miliband - The Last Fool Standing'.