Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
If large predators keep eating people in your village, the solution is to build wind turbines and install solar panels?
Climate change adds to woes of ‘tiger widows’ of Sunderbans
As per locals, there are thousands of tiger widows in the expansive Sunderbans region-their lives riddled with social ostracisation, financial instability, and psychological distress Gosaba (Sundarbans),, Updated At : 06:52 PM Feb 21, 2026 IST
…
Rina, like several of her companions, is a “tiger widow” — a local woman whose husband has been taken by the Bengal tiger.
“In 2022, my husband Sudipto Sarkar went to catch fish and crabs, and never returned. He was killed by a tiger,” Rina says as her voice trails off.
…
The situation has been exacerbated in recent years, amid rising instances of human-tiger conflict, primarily due to the adverse effects of climate change.
…
Umashankar Mandal, founder of PEHS, says, “Since many men enter the forests without official permits, their deaths are often considered illegal, disqualifying their families from receiving government compensation.” This leaves numerous tiger widows vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Several studies have revealed cases of physical abuse, sexual exploitation, and trafficking into sex work.
I feel sorry for Rana and all the women who lost their husbands to tiger predation.
But here’s a radical idea. Why not arm the menfolk with guns, so they can go into the Sunderbans and shoot a few tigers?
They don’t have to kill them all. Big predators are smart, they very quickly learn to avoid people with long pointy things, after watching all their friends get shot. They should at least kill the man eaters.
There is something very Indian about bureaucrats just letting people get eaten, without doing anything concrete to stop the carnage, because the victims don’t have the right permit. Or just sitting around blaming externalities like climate change when they should be organising tiger hunts.
I once read a story about the Madras nuclear power plant. The giant Asian Tsunami of 2004 allegedly blocked the cooling water inlet with debris. Thankfully the plant was in a partial shutdown state for maintenance at the time of the disaster. After the Tsunami devastation receded, the plant operators reportedly ran simulations which suggested blocking the cooling water inlet would not have caused a meltdown, cleared away the mud and debris, and restarted the plant.
There were some concerns raised at the time about the realism of the simulations, the possibility the simulations possibly missed a few factors. .
When I told my friend Bhavesh, he laughed and replied “In India, you have to believe in God“.
To be fair, years after the Tsunami, particularly in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, there were renewed efforts to improve flood resilience. Let’s hope those flood resilience upgrade efforts were successful. And let’s hope someone organises a tiger hunt, to try to prevent the tragic deaths of people trying to make a living in the Sunderbans, regardless of whether they have the right permit.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has finally rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF) – the Obama era EPA ruling that claimed carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” (GHG) emissions “endanger” human health and welfare. Within minutes, climate alarmists challenged it in court.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has finally rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF) – the Obama era EPA ruling that claimed carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” (GHG) emissions “endanger” human health and welfare. Within minutes, climate alarmists challenged it in court.
The action follows an extensive review of scientific evidence, legal and constitutional principles, and 572,000 public comments (534,000 via mass comment campaigns).
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called it “the single largest deregulatory action in US history.” Just eliminating federal GHG emission standards for vehicles (model years 2012–2027 and beyond) will save American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion, EPA estimates. They will no longer have to pay for measuring, reporting, certifying and complying with federal GHG vehicle emission standards.
EPA had attached endangerment tailpipe emission standards to impossible-to-meet 50.4 mpg fuel economy requirements – effectively banning internal combustion engines and forcing people to buy electric models. Now motorists can buy the cars and light trucks they choose.
Scrapping the hated automatic stop/start “feature” will save consumers $2,400 per vehicle – and hopefully let us have repair shops disable it. Anyone who’s tried to merge into moving traffic from even a brief stop knows how maddening and dangerous this gimmick is.
Future actions will likely eradicate endangerment diktats on coal and gas power plants that generate electricity for the grid. That will keep electricity costs affordable and ensure we have power when we need it: for lights, heat, AC, refrigerators, stoves, computers, entertainment, hospitals, schools, shops, offices, traffic lights, data centers and banking – not just on average days, but during winter storms and summer heatwaves. No Net Zero wind-solar-battery system yet devised can do that, at any price.
The Endangerment reversal generated predictable howls of outrage from factions with economic or ideological stakes in the Obama ruling and tomes of regulations promulgated in its wake. They’ll no longer be able to dictate energy, economic and consumer choices. The rest of us should rejoice.
The EF originated with Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The US Supreme Court said EPA could regulate GHGs if the agency found that they “cause or contribute” to “air pollution” that may be “reasonably anticipated” to “endanger public health or welfare” by causing dangerous climate and weather changes.
The Obama EPA twisted and tortured science, history and common sense to fit the Court ruling and promulgated the Endangerment decree. Officially, the 2007 ruling has not been reversed.
However, the Trump EPA’s extensive final rule rescinding the EF demonstrates that Mass v EPA has effectively been reversed – and certainly rendered irrelevant by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, evidence-based science and international reality.
* Legal and constitutional rulings torpedo and sink the 2009 Endangerment dreadnaught.
In West Virginia v. EPA (2022) the Court ruled that federal agencies may not violate the “major questions doctrine,” which states that, in the absence of clear congressional direction or authorization, agencies may not make decisions or issue regulations “of vast economic and political significance.”
The Clean Air Act (CAA) does not include life-giving carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It provides no legislative language or other authorization for EPA to unilaterally declare that CO2 is a pollutant that would somehow “endanger public health or welfare” by causing or contributing to climate disruptions.
EPA nevertheless did precisely that – and used the Endangerment declaration to give itself effective control over the nation’s transportation, electricity generation, petrochemical and other industries; its economy, employment and living standards. EF regulations have impacts of undeniably “vast economic and political significance,” making them impermissible and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) restricted EPA’s discretion and assertion of power even further. That case overturned the Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. NRDC and ended judicial deference to government agencies (the “Chevron doctrine”). Bureaucrats may no longer devise self-proclaimed “reasonable interpretations” of unclear statutory language, if those interpretations would significantly expand regulatory powers or inflate private sector costs.
EPA’s Endangerment Finding doesn’t have a legal or constitutional leg to stand on.
* Evidence-based science gives EPA no foundation for declaring CO2 a dangerous pollutant.
Unlike pollutants listed in the CAA, carbon dioxide is nontoxic. Indeed, it is essential to planetary life. Humans and animals exhale it when they breathe; plants absorb CO2 during photosynthesis and emit oxygen. More atmospheric CO2 helps plants grow better, faster and with less water.
Endangerment proponents offer little more than baseless hair-raising assertions about climate calamities already upon us … and future catastrophes predicted by computer models based on GHGs controlling Earth’s climate. It’s Monty Python in Search of the Holy Grail of climate control – and ultimately control of American and world economies and living standards.
But as EPA’s new analysis, thousands of scientists, and reams of data and evidence demonstrate, this fearmongering does not reflect planetary reality. Average global temperatures have increased only slightly in 100 years; many US temperature records set in the 1930s still stand; and many alleged recent historic highs were recorded at airports and urban areas (heat islands).
There is no real-world evidence that CO2 or other GHGs have replaced the complex solar, cosmic and other natural forces that have brought numerous climate fluctuations throughout Earth history.
* Even total US elimination of fossil fuels would be a multi-trillion-dollar lesson in futility.
China emits one-third of global greenhouse gases, more than all developed nations combined. India and Indonesia add another tenth. They’re building new coal-fired power plants every month, to raise their people’s living standards and become global powers.
In still-destitute countries, billions have minimal, sporadic access to electricity 750 million have no access. They are constructing coal and gas power plants, industrializing, driving cars – and emitting GHGs at ever-increasing rates, to improve and save millions of lives. US emissions are irrelevant.
* The real dangers to our health and welfare come from eliminating fossil fuels.
Wind and solar power were de minimis during Winter Storm Fern. So was New England’s expected Canadian electricity. Coal, gas and nuclear power came to the rescue. Without them, thousands of lives would likely have been lost.
Oil, natural gas and coal still provide over 80% of total US primary energy consumption – plus irreplaceable feedstocks for more than 6,000 medical, pharmaceutical, communication, construction, transportation and other products. Without fossil fuels, our lives would revert to 1900 or earlier.
Any actual endangerment to our health and welfare does not arise from using fossil fuels – and possibly adding a smidgeon to adverse (or beneficial) climate and weather changes. It comes from eliminating fossil fuels, relying on “renewable” energy that’s missing when most needed, and denying humanity thousands of essential petrochemical products.
There is no basis for the DC Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court to do anything but affirm the Trump-Zeldin reversal of the ignominious, destructive Obama Era Endangerment Finding.
Modern climate models are used to support the claim that recent warming is unprecedented and largely man-made. This claim is based on the assumption that the models can accurately reproduce Earth’s past climate behavior. But they don´t.
A closer look at Nicola Scafetta’s new study shows that climate models repeatedly fail to reproduce known warm periods of the past, including the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) between about 900 and 1300 AD.
Modern climate models are used to support the claim that recent warming is unprecedented and largely man-made. This claim is based on the assumption that the models can accurately reproduce Earth’s past climate behavior. But they don´t.
A closer look at Nicola Scafetta’s new study shows that climate models repeatedly fail to reproduce known warm periods of the past, including the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) between about 900 and 1300 AD.
Scafetta highlights the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, ~900–1300 CE) as a prime example of model shortcomings.
Proxy-based reconstructions (e.g., from earlier studies like Lamb 1965, and more recent ones such as Moberg et al. 2005, Ljungqvist 2010, Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012) show a pronounced warm phase in the Northern Hemisphere, often estimated as warmer than the first half of the 20th century in some records, followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA, ~1300–1850 CE). These form part of quasi-millennial oscillations (e.g., the Eddy cycle).
However, CMIP GCMs (especially those in CMIP6 used for IPCC AR6) produce relatively flat or minimally varying temperatures during this medieval interval. They do not capture the significant warming.
Nicola Scafetta is an Italian physicist and researcher (affiliated with institutions like the University of Naples and previously with Duke University/NASA-related labs) known for his work on climate variability, solar influences, and critiques of mainstream climate models.
His research frequently discusses the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, roughly 800–1350 CE), a period of relative warmth documented in various paleoclimate records, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., Europe, North Atlantic regions). Scafetta argues that the MWP (along with earlier periods like the Roman Warm Period) reflects significant natural climate variability, often linked to a quasi-millennial oscillation in climate records.
Key points from his publications:
He highlights that current global climate models (e.g., CMIP6 models used in IPCC reports) fail to reproduce the MWP. For instance, in his 2021 and 2024 papers, he points out that these models show little to no warming during the medieval era because they assume low secular variability in total solar irradiance (TSI) and lack mechanisms to capture natural millennial-scale cycles. He references IPCC AR6 figures acknowledging larger model-reconstruction disagreements before ~1300 CE.
Scafetta attributes the MWP (and contrasting cold periods like the Little Ice Age) primarily to solar activity variations, including higher solar output during the medieval era, possibly amplified by non-radiative mechanisms (e.g., solar magnetic modulation of cosmic rays or other particle fluxes). He contrasts this with models that minimize solar forcing, leading them to attribute nearly all modern warming to anthropogenic factors.
In reconstructions (e.g., his 2021 millennial global surface temperature work), he incorporates natural oscillations (including ~60-year, ~1000-year cycles) and suggests these explain a substantial portion of historical and recent temperature changes, implying lower equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS around 1–2 °C) than many GCMs assume.
Broader context in his work: He uses multi-proxy solar records and empirical analyses to argue that natural variability (solar/astronomical) has been underestimated, affecting interpretations of both the MWP and modern warming.
“Detection, attribution, and modeling of climate change: Key open issues” is a 2025 (published 2026 in print) open-access review paper by Nicola Scafetta, published in Gondwana Research (Volume 152, April 2026, Pages 92-128; DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2025.05.001). An earlier preprint appeared on arXiv in May 2025 (arXiv:2506.13994).
This work builds on Scafetta’s longstanding research emphasizing natural climate variability (especially solar and astronomical influences), critiques of mainstream Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) global climate models (GCMs), and implications for lower climate sensitivity and moderated future warming projections.
Main Highlights and Arguments
Core Thesis: Climate science faces unresolved “key open issues” in detection (accurately identifying changes), attribution (assigning causes), and modeling (simulating past and future climates). Scafetta argues that CMIP GCMs (used heavily in IPCC assessments) struggle significantly with these, particularly in reproducing natural multi-timescale variability observed throughout the Holocene, including periods like the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
Primary Scientific Challenges Identified:
Uncertainties in observational data: Global surface temperature records may be affected by non-climatic biases, such as urban heat island (UHI) effects, station moves/relocations, instrumentation changes, and land-use alterations. Scafetta suggests these could lead to overestimation of recent warming trends, citing evidence like rural-only station subsets showing less warming and the post-1980 “divergence problem” between instrumental records and tree-ring proxies.
Underestimation of natural variability: GCMs assume low secular solar irradiance variability and lack adequate mechanisms for millennial-scale cycles (e.g., Eddy ~1000-year cycle). This causes poor hindcasting of pre-industrial warm/cold periods and over-attribution of recent warming to anthropogenic factors.
Lack of observed tropical upper-tropospheric “hot spot” predicted by models.
Satellite tropospheric records showing less warming than surface records (especially in the Northern Hemisphere), suggesting surface data inflation (~21% excess globally since ~1980–2020).
Divergences in proxy vs. instrumental trends post-1980.
Climate Sensitivity and Projections:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to CO₂ doubling may be lower than IPCC ranges (often >3 °C), with empirical estimates suggesting ~1.1 ± 0.4 °C or below 3 °C.
Incorporating natural oscillations (e.g., 60-year, millennial cycles) in harmonic/empirical models explains much of 20th–21st century warming, projecting only moderate additional warming (1 °C or less by 2100 under mid-range SSP scenarios).
This challenges the urgency of aggressive “Net-Zero” mitigation policies, favoring adaptation and refined modeling over drastic emissions cuts.
Policy and Broader Implications:
Scafetta calls for more refined approaches that better integrate natural drivers (solar, astronomical) and address data uncertainties.
He argues GCM limitations mean projections may overestimate risks, urging open discussion of alternatives for informed, sustainable strategies.
Heat pumps are having a moment. Governments promote them, utilities love them, and they are, now more often than ever, described as an obvious replacement for fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas), fueled heating. The basic idea sounds great…a heat pump works like a reverse refrigerator. Instead of “pushing heat out, it pulls heat in”. That heat can come from the air outside your house or from the ground below it.
Heat pumps are having a moment. Governments promote them, utilities love them, and they are, now more often than ever, described as an obvious replacement for fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas), fueled heating. The basic idea sounds great…a heat pump works like a reverse refrigerator. Instead of “pushing heat out, it pulls heat in”. That heat can come from the air outside your house or from the ground below it.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) sums up the enthusiasm nicely. “Heat pumps, powered by low‐emissions electricity, are the central technology in the global transition to secure and sustainable heating. Heat pumps currently available on the market are three‐to‐five times more energy efficient than natural gas boilers. That statement contains three big claims:
(1) heat pumps are three to five times more efficient,
(2) they run on “low-emission” electricity, and
(3) they are secure and sustainable
All three deserve a closer look, so here we go…
1. Why heat pumps really are efficient… at the device level
There is a solid reason, rooted in physics, behind why heat pumps are attractive. Transferring heat from one place to another takes much less energy than generating heat from scratch by burning fuel. Under favorable conditions, a heat pump might use one unit of electricity to move three units of heat. This is where the famous “three to five times more efficiency” number comes from.
But here is the catch! That number is not efficiency in the everyday sense. It’s called the Coefficient of Performance (COP), and COP is not the same thing as system efficiency. To start with, a heat pump relies on electricity, while a gas or oil boiler mostly relies on chemical energy and needs very little electricity to operate. You can keep a boiler running with a small backup battery… but you cannot do that with a heat pump… the three to one number forgets the (in)efficiency of the electricity required from the grid… and you and I know how complex that grid is.
2.Electricity doesn’t just “arrive” for free
The “three to five times more efficiency” claim, quietly assumes that electricity arrives at your home with no losses. But in reality, electricity available 24/7/365 has to be generated, transmitted, balanced, and backed up.
On average, roughly 2.5 to 3 units of primary energy are needed to deliver one unit of electricity to your socket when thermal power plants are involved, as they mostly are.
That means using electricity “100% efficiently” at home starts, at the system level, at only 30 to 40% efficiency. Wind and solar changes the accounting by introducing their own challenges, among them being the need for overbuild, short duration storage, long duration storage, thermal backup and larger and more complex network integration and transmission infrastructure. Once these are considered, wind and solar dominant systems do not outperform coal, gas, or nuclear in net energy efficiency but actually underperform. Think about energy density, intermittency, and the short operational lifetime.
3.Heat pumps struggle when you need them most
Another unpopular truth that raises the temperature… or does it?…
The colder it gets, the more the performance of heat pumps decline.
When winter hits and heating demand peaks, the heat pump performance COP drops. This is especially true for air-source heat pumps as ground-source systems tend to perform a bit better, even though they are more expensive, slow to install, and often impractical in densely populated cities.
This creates a nasty feedback loop… because just as heat pumps need more electricity during cold spells, solar output tends to be low, wind can be unreliable, and grids are already under pressure on top of the dropping COP. In winters coal and gas plants are usually ramped up to secure the electricity supply. So even if your annual electricity mix looks “green,” the marginal power that keeps your heat pump running during a cold snap is more often than not fossil-based… do you see the feedback loop?
4.Peak power is the real bottleneck
Electrifying heating doesn’t just increase electricity consumption; it increases peak power demand in winters when power system is already strained. Grids must be built for the coldest, darkest, calmest winter evenings, not for yearly averages. The IEA projects that peak electricity demand grows far faster than total electricity demand due to heat pumps, electric vehicles, data centers, and AI. When demand spikes, coal, oil, gas and nuclear fill the gap. That is why the idea of heat pumps running on wind and solar often collapses under real winter conditions.
5. Security and sustainability depend on where you live
If you are in rural Scandinavia with abundant hydropower and a very secure grid, heat pumps could make more sense, but in large cities with fragile grids, the picture changes completely. In urban areas, air-source “monoblock” heat pumps are popular because they are cost-effective and easy to install. However, they are noisier, lose efficiency in winter, and are vulnerable during power outages. When the power goes out during freezing weather, circulation stops, water freezes, pipes burst, and systems can be a complete write-off. After some recent winter blackouts (Berlin end December 2025), many heat pumps didn’t come back online even after electricity was restored.
Now imagine there is an armed conflict or cyber-attack? Do you feel safer with a heat pump or with a standard gas- or oil-based boiler?
So let’s be honest…from an energy security standpoint, heat pumps seem flaky. From a sustainability standpoint, powered by energy systems that require massive overbuilding, short lifetimes, and heavy material use it is questionable at best and deserves some skepticism and allot of discussion.
Summary – So where do heat pumps actually fit?
Heat pumps are neither a universal solution nor a dead end. They work best, out in the country, where grids are reliable, electricity is reliable, or where winter temperatures are moderate. But in a city setting, district heating combined with large ground- or water-source heat pumps and thermal storage is likely more appropriate than widespread deployment of individual units.
One last reality check we should consider is that… adoption closely follows subsidies. When subsidies drop, sales drop. That doesn’t make heat pumps bad, but it does suggest they are not the obvious, no-brainer solution they are often made out to be.
Heat pumps are efficient machines, sure, but whether they actually contribute to an efficient, secure, and sustainable energy system depends on too many elements around them. One thing is for sure, heat pumps cannot make oil and gas boilers go extinct… and anyone telling you otherwise is disingenuous.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Trump administration and Administrator Lee Zeldin, announced on February 19, 2026, plans to revamp the Clean School Bus (CSB) Program. This program, established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, allocated $5 billion over five years (FY 2022–2026) to help school districts replace older diesel buses with cleaner alternatives, with a strong emphasis on zero-emission electric school buses. The EPA’s announcement criticizes the Biden-era implementation, stating that since 2021, the program “forced unsafe and unreliable electric buses onto American schools.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Trump administration and Administrator Lee Zeldin, announced on February 19, 2026, plans to revamp the Clean School Bus (CSB) Program. This program, established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, allocated $5 billion over five years (FY 2022–2026) to help school districts replace older diesel buses with cleaner alternatives, with a strong emphasis on zero-emission electric school buses.
The EPA’s announcement criticizes the Biden-era implementation, stating that since 2021, the program “forced unsafe and unreliable electric buses onto American schools.”
Key issues highlighted include:
About $2.7 billion awarded so far, with roughly 90–95% going toward electric buses (and the rest mainly to propane).
Problems with manufacturer Lion Electric (a major electric bus supplier), which filed for bankruptcy in 2024 after receiving significant funding. This led to undelivered buses, maintenance issues, unfulfilled warranties, and operational failures in some districts.
Broader concerns about reliability in cold weather or other conditions, poor management, potential fraud/waste/abuse (noted in prior audits), and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.
The revamp aims to:
Provide school districts with greater choice in bus types and fuels.
Include more options like compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), biofuels, hydrogen, or propane, alongside electric, while still complying with the law’s intent (which requires at least 50% of funds for zero-emission buses, typically meaning battery-electric in practice).
Strengthen oversight, compliance, and fiscal responsibility.
Align with President Trump’s executive orders on unleashing American energy and bringing back auto jobs.
The EPA is seeking public input via a Request for Information (RFI) on the availability, cost, and performance of these alternative fuels/technologies. This feedback will shape the 2026 funding round (the program’s final year), with about $2.3 billion remaining unspent. No new funding has been awarded under the current administration yet, and the program was paused earlier.
The official EPA news release frames this as prioritizing child safety, reliability, and efficient use of tax dollars, while fulfilling congressional requirements. Critics of the changes (from sources like environmental outlets) argue it reduces focus on zero-emission options and could slow emissions reductions from school transportation.
EPA is actively reviewing and revamping the Clean School Bus Program in accordance with President Trump’s Executive Order Unleashing American Energy to ensure hard-earned American tax dollars are being put to the best use possible and not frivolously wasted as was often the case under the previous administration. Under Administrator Zeldin’s leadership, EPA is committed to being exceptional stewards of taxpayer dollars and delivering measured results for American families, while still fulfilling Congressional intent. Administrator Zeldin has cancelled roughly $30 billion in wasteful grants and contracts since being confirmed as EPA Administrator. EPA anticipates providing additional information about the revamped and modernized Clean School Bus Program in the near future.
In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed EPA to create the CSB Program and to fund vehicle replacement projects totaling $5 billion over five years (FY 2022-2026).
View more details about awards under past funding opportunities on the CSB Awards page.
EPA will continue to update this page with additional Clean School Bus Program funding information and educational resources.
On February 19, 2026, as part of EPA’s revamp of the Clean School Bus Program, the agency issued a Request for Information to seek feedback from fleet operators, manufacturers, school officials, and energy producers on a broad range of fuel options that school bus sectors could use. EPA is planning a new funding opportunity under the Clean School Bus Program that will prioritize child safety, fiscal responsibility, and reliable buses worthy of tax dollars, while also providing school districts with consumer choice. To support the development of this new funding opportunity, EPA invites public comments on program oversight and alternative fuels for school buses.
The comment period will be open for 45 days following the publication of the RFI in the Federal Register.
EPA will also be hosting an informational webinar during which participants may also submit comments and questions. The webinar will be hosted on March 3, 2026. Further details will be provided here as they become available.
EPA Announces Path Forward to Revamp the Clean School Bus Program to Provide Safe, Affordable, Efficient Transportation for America’s Youth
Seeks Public Input to Reform the Program to Ensure Best Use of Taxpayer Dollars and Deliver Results for American Families
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the path forward to revamp the Clean School Bus (CSB) Program to provide school districts with increased choice and affordable options for school buses. By doing so, EPA will strengthen oversight and compliance actions in a way that aligns with President Trump’s Day One executive orders and ensure hard-earned American tax dollars are being put to the best use possible. The updates to the program will help bring back American auto jobs and unleash American energy production—key pillars to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s Powering the Great American Comeback initiative.
Since 2021, the Biden- era program has forced unsafe and unreliable electric buses onto American schools. There are multiple well-documented examples of one particular bus manufacturer failing to deliver buses altogether despite preemptively receiving tens of millions of tax dollars from the CSB program. To fix these issues, the Trump EPA will seek public input on the availability, cost, and performance of alternative school bus fuels and technologies. This feedback will help reform the program to bring consumer choice back to schools and deliver results for American families, while still fulfilling congressional intent.
“As was the case with so many of the Biden-era programs, the Clean School Bus program has been a disaster of poor management and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. At the Trump EPA, we have zero tolerance for reckless spending. Today, EPA takes the next step to set the program straight,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin. “Americans can rest assured that moving forward, the program will be safe, effective, and use reliable forms of American energy.”
In line with the Trump EPA’s commitment to consumer choice, today the agency is issuing a Request for Information (RFI) to seek feedback from fleet operators, manufacturers, school officials, and energy producers on a broad range of fuel options that school bus sectors could use. These fuel options include biofuels, compressed natural gas, liquified natural gas, and hydrogen. While the law has always allowed for these fuel options, the Biden Administration intentionally limited their availability to push the use of government subsidized electric buses. By providing more options to school districts, EPA will ensure they can purchase the right types of school buses for their specific needs. EPA intends to use the information gathered from the RFI and lessons learned from previous funding rounds to revamp the CSB program for the 2026 grant funding round. The public can expect this next round of funding to prioritize child safety, fiscal responsibility, and reliable buses worthy of their tax dollars for American schools—aspects that have all been lacking in previous rounds under the Biden Administration.
Additionally, EPA will not be awarding funds as part of the 2024 CSB Rebate Program. EPA thanks applicants for their interest and encourages them to apply for the new grant program. The agency will provide more details on the 2026 grants and eligibility requirements in the near future through a Notice of Funding Opportunity. EPA is committed to ensuring the CSB program delivers clean air for all Americans and fulfills the agency’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment. Every taxpayer dollar spent through the CSB Program under the Trump EPA will strengthen school transportation reliability, invest in America’s children, and fulfill all statutory obligations.
EPA will hold a 45-day public comment period on the RFI, which will include an informational webinar on March 3, 2026, to help answer questions on the RFI. To comment on the RFI or register for the informational webinar, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus.
Background
In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed EPA to create the CSB Program and to fund vehicle replacement projects totaling $5 billion over five years (FY 2022-2026) for the replacement of existing school buses with clean school buses or zero-emission school buses, as well as some fueling infrastructure.
The Biden- Harris Administration disastrously gave out around $2.7 billion in funding under the CSB program with 90 percent going to electric school buses and the rest going to propane- fueled buses. Most notably, Lion Electric, a manufacturer of electric buses, went bankrupt in 2024. This was despite having received approximately $160 million directly in CSB funding, and with school districts using their own CSB awards to also purchase Lion Electric buses. To date, some buses remain undelivered and not adequately maintained due to Lion Electric’s action. EPA is not able to comment further on matters pertaining to ongoing litigation but is evaluating potential options once the bankruptcy proceedings conclude.
Under the Trump Administration, EPA has not given out any funding under the program. Under Administrator Zeldin’s leadership, EPA is committed to being exceptional stewards of taxpayer dollars. Since being confirmed as EPA Administrator, Administrator Zeldin has cancelled roughly $30 billion in wasteful grants and contracts across the agency.
Recent reports confirm that China commissioned including more than 50 large-scale units.
Specifically, according to a joint analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and Global Energy Monitor (GEM), China commissioned 78 GW of new coal- fired power capacity in 2025, the highest annual total in a decade. This included more than 50 large coal units (each with 1 GW or more generating capacity), up sharply from fewer than 20 such large units per year in the prior decade.
Recent reports confirm that China commissioned including more than 50 large-scale units.
Specifically, according to a joint analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and Global Energy Monitor (GEM), China commissioned 78 GW of new coal- fired power capacity in 2025, the highest annual total in a decade. This included more than 50 large coal units (each with 1 GW or more generating capacity), up sharply from fewer than 20 such large units per year in the prior decade.
Construction starts were also high at 83 GW (down slightly from 98 GW in 2024).
New project proposals (including reactivations) hit a record 161 GW.
Overall pipeline (permitted or under construction) stood at ~291 GW by year-end.
Critics highlight the tension with global climate goals, given China’s role as the top CO₂ emitter and holder of ~71% of global coal power under development.
It’s almost like China doesn’t give a toss about climate change, eh?
Just quietly, while everyone was gushing tears over a two-year extension to a fifty-year-old Australian plant, China added a gargantuan number of brand-new coal plants.
Australia’s total coal fleet stands at 26 gigawatts in capacity. Yet China added three times that capacity in a single year.
Overall, China brought 78 gigawatts of new coal power capacity online in 2025, a sharp uptick from previous years, according to the joint report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and Global Energy Monitor.
The graph below represents how many gigawatts were added, but only in the largest turbines size. China added 52 gigawatts of energy from one gigawatt units. Presumably the rest of the 78GW came from smaller sized turbines. And here’s the thing, while everyone will pretend this is the peak and tell us “it will decline soon”, another 83 gigawatts of coal plants has already started construction, and another 161GW is newly proposed or applied for.
These coal plants are apparently only being used at 50% capacity, but the thing is, if China ever needs to ramp up its energy supply, like say, in a time of war, it could double it in days.
But China is just replacing the old dirty coal plants, right?
That’s what they want you to think. See the tiny black bars, top left, marked “Retired”
All the coal power Australia has built in the last 50 years, China just effectively added that in the last four months.
According to a research report published on February 3, more than 50 large coal-fired power plants will be connected to the grid in 2025. These are individual boiler and turbine sets with a capacity of at least one gigawatt. In the ten years prior, the number was less than 20 per year. Depending on consumption, one gigawatt can supply several hundred thousand to over two million households with electricity. — Euronews
Euronews asks – if wind and solar are booming in China …why is it building so many new coal plants?
The answer apparently is that there were blackouts in 2021-22, and it takes a few years to get through the paperwork accelerate the construction. (Thinking about the timing, unless they can build coal plants in three years, they must have already had a set of coal plants in the approval or construction phase, and they pushed them through faster than expected to create such a boom). Supposedly this is that wave of new plants in response to those blackouts.
In 2022, Alex Epstein released “Fossil Future,” his treatise on why humanity requires more coal, oil and natural gas to flourish. When the book appeared, the Biden administration was making extravagant pledges to fund global climate initiatives. Executives of major financial institutions and energy firms were making theatrical commitments to reducing their use and production of fossil fuels.
In 2022, Alex Epstein released “Fossil Future,” his treatise on why humanity requires more coal, oil and natural gas to flourish. When the book appeared, the Biden administration was making extravagant pledges to fund global climate initiatives. Executives of major financial institutions and energy firms were making theatrical commitments to reducing their use and production of fossil fuels.
But four years later, those same industry titans are scrambling for excuses to delay or abandon net zero goals and seeking to develop the energy sources they had publicly disavowed. Business leaders cite supply chain complexities, technological barriers and cost overruns. Some even acknowledge that fossil fuels are a necessity of modern life.
However, for national governments, reversing course is complicated by entanglements in the bureaucratic web of international climate agreements. Hence, they maintain the language of action – as though they could control something as huge and complex as the climate system –while systematically securing long-term supplies of fossil fuels and expanding hydrocarbon infrastructure.
No country displays this pragmatism better than India, which has quietly delayed its net zero commitments to a distant 2070. Behind a green veneer, India doubles down on every form of useful hydrocarbon available. In doing so, it has emerged as a key export market for U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG) and a bellwether for global energy reality.
Coal Reality Quashes Green Illusion
India plans to increase by 2035 its coal-power capacity by 46%. Indian state electricity distributors are signing contracts with delivery dates in 2030 – the year climate alarmists claimed coal would be on its deathbed. Some incentives for clean energy projects have been withdrawn.
A senior analyst with Wood Mackenzie recently admitted they have revised projections for coal-fired power generation in India. They now expect the peak to occur in the early 2040s, pushing it back from their previous outlook of the 2030s. Do not be surprised when the new date is abandoned for a still later one.
US-India Energy Bonanza
New Delhi recognizes that energy sovereignty requires a diverse portfolio of reliable partners. This realization has revived India-U.S. energy trade, breathing life into ties that suffered from a year of geopolitical friction. In fiscal year 2025, bilateral hydrocarbon trade between the two nations surged to nearly $14 billion, with increases in volume across crude oil, LNG and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
At the India Energy Expo conference in January, Indian energy companies expressed strong interest in securing equity participation in U.S. projects for LNG liquefaction. They are targeting facilities currently under construction or nearing final investment decisions. India sees U.S. gas as a cornerstone of its energy security for decades to come.
India is also pursuing domestic oil exploration with a vigor that should shame Western nations that have banned fracking. Oil India has identified the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as a new frontier for oil and gas exploration. Simultaneously, U.S. companies are ramping up their presence in India’s upstream sector, partnering across the entire exploration and production value chain.
In addition, India is keen on finalizing a bilateral energy engagement with Japan and already has Japanese companies participating in developmentof 13 sedimentary basins.
Surprising some with its interest in developing fossil fuels, a liberal Canadian government had its natural resources minister meet with an Indian counterpart to finalize plans to supply more crude oil, LNG and LPG in return for refined petroleum products from India.
Even Europe, the Vatican of climate religion, is bowing to necessity. The anti-fossil EU lobby has spent years trying to strangle hydrocarbon trade, yet deals involving Indian refined products continue to advance. Europe needs diesel and jet fuel, and Europeans do not care if the crude originated in a well that their own regulations would ban. India processes the oil, and Europe buys the product, outsourcing “emissions” while keeping its economies running.
The United States has a tremendous opportunity here. It has the resources India needs and the technology to help them burn it more cleanly and efficiently. But more importantly, the Trump administration shares the subcontinent’s interest in a world of abundant and affordable energy.
The “Fossil Future” is being built by India one coal plant at a time, along with myriad contracts for oil and natural gas development.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
Hive Energy, which develops renewable projects worldwide (including over 200 globally), recently secured a £60 million loan backed by the UK government through UK Export Finance (UKEF) and provided via HSBC. This was intended to support its expansion into international markets like Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and the Caribbean.
However, just months later (in early 2026), the company issued a notice of intention to appoint administrators, signaling severe financial distress.
Hive Energy, which develops renewable projects worldwide (including over 200 globally), recently secured a £60 million loan backed by the UK government through UK Export Finance (UKEF) and provided via HSBC. This was intended to support its expansion into international markets like Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and the Caribbean.
However, just months later (in early 2026), the company issued a notice of intention to appoint administrators, signaling severe financial distress. This is linked to creditor pressures, particularly involving its subsidiary Ethical Power. If administration proceeds and the loan isn’t repaid, UK taxpayers could be liable for a significant portion—or potentially all—of the £60 million, as the government’s guarantee would kick in.
The situation has sparked criticism about the due diligence process by UKEF, especially since Hive reportedly posted a £29 million operating loss in 2024.
This fits a broader pattern of scrutiny over taxpayer-funded support for renewable firms that later struggle, though Hive’s case is specific to this recent UK development.
Taxpayer on the hook for millions as solar company faces administration
Hive Energy won £60m state-backed loan last year to launch itself as a global operation
Taxpayers are facing a potential multimillion-pound blow as a leading British solar energy developer risks the threat of administration.The Telegraph has the story.
Hive Energy is preparing to appoint administrators just months after securing a £60m taxpayer-backed loan from HSBC to launch itself as a global operation.
The loan was announced by the UK Government last November at the UN’s COP30 climate conference to show how the UK was supporting the global expansion of solar. The loan guarantee was personally endorsed by Tim Reid, the chief executive of UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF), who said he was “proud” to support Hive.
It is the second such loan offered to Hive Energy, following a similar guarantee for a £19m loan from Santander taken out in 2024.
This week Hive issued a “notice of intention to appoint administrators” with law firm DLA Piper as its legal advisors. The move suggests the company – which has 200 renewables projects in its global pipeline, 15 of which are in the UK – is at risk of collapse.
It also raises the threat that taxpayers could be on the hook for loan repayments, and questions about the quality of UKEF’s vetting of Hive before approving the latest loan.
When asked by The Telegraph if taxpayer money was at risk, the UKEF and Mr Reid declined to comment.
HSBC and Santander banks also both declined to comment.
Hive Energy, which was founded by city entrepreneur and ocean racing yachtsman Giles Redpath, confirmed that it was suffering problems with creditors linked to its subsidiary Ethical Power, which constructs and operates solar and other renewables sites across the UK, Spain, Italy, Greece and New Zealand.
A spokesman said: “This process does not mean that the business has entered administration or that it will enter administration but rather provides time and stability to explore strategic options in an orderly manner.
This case highlights broader risks in taxpayer-supported green energy initiatives, similar to past scrutiny of projects like the failed Britishvolt battery factory.
No further updates on resolution or taxpayer impact have emerged in the last few days, but the situation remains fluid.
As of the latest reports (around February 22-23, 2026), Hive Energy hasn’t actually entered full administration yet. They filed a “notice of intention to appoint administrators” (a protective step under UK law that typically buys 10 business days or so to restructure or find buyers/investors).
The company continues trading normally under its existing board, with a spokesperson emphasizing it’s a “longstanding and fundamentally strong business” exploring strategic options in an orderly way—no shutdown or cessation of operations.
That said, the £60m UKEF-backed loan remains a big taxpayer exposure point if things go south, especially given the 2024 £29m loss and creditor pressures (tied partly to the recent Ethical Power stake).
Coverage from outlets like The Telegraph, Express, and blogs hasn’t shown major new developments in the past few days—no confirmation of actual administration or resolution.
Only a complete eco-nutter would want to compress carbon dioxide to dangerous asphyxiating levels and then run it through a three foot-wide near-surface metal pipe costing at least half a billion pounds, along a 120-mile path near human conurbations strewn with subsidence-causing, uncharted, ancient mines. At a hopefully intact end, the highly pressurised CO2 is then tipped into a former gas hole in the Irish Sea where over time it is likely to escape as the numerous mining caps start to fail.
Only a complete eco-nutter would want to compress carbon dioxide to dangerous asphyxiating levels and then run it through a three foot-wide near-surface metal pipe costing at least half a billion pounds, along a 120-mile path near human conurbations strewn with subsidence- causing, uncharted, ancient mines. At a hopefully intact end, the highly pressurised CO2 is then tipped into a former gas hole in the Irish Sea where over time it is likely to escape as the numerous mining caps start to fail. Add in another £4 billion for the whole pointless and potentially dangerous carbon capture project, and it is all in a day’s spending for the Miliband-led lunatics. Small change, of course, for the lying (‘wind is cheaper than gas’), dishonest (‘grid will be 95% renewables in 46 months’ time’) freaks involved in a political attempt to wreck the British economy on the pretext that ‘settled’ science says we should all freak out about the gas of life.
The Peak Cluster CO2 pipeline is in early planning and public consultation stages, and it aims to take the gas from four cement and lime factories in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. It will run through Staffordshire, Cheshire and the Wirral and connect to an offshore storage site in depleted gas reserves under Morecambe Bay. The pipeline is said to be the world’s largest cement decarbonisation initiative, capturing three million tonnes of CO2 a year. This amounts to just 0.00008% of global emissions, or if you prefer fractions, 1/1,266,667. The effect on any global temperature movement can fairly be said to be unmeasurable. In total, the sinister, hard- Left Net Zero minister Miliband plans to spend over £20 billion of borrowed state money to capture equally miniscule amounts of CO2 in a number of other sites over the next 20 years.
But at least impoverished UK taxpayers can sleep easy in their beds knowing they are leading the world in exciting new green technologies.
Here is the route map for the pipeline of potential death.
The pipeline will be put in a trench about three feet from the surface, although more tricky laying will be need across roads, watercourses and railway lines. A number of above-ground inspection installations are promised, while block- valve stations for the high-pressure steel pipeline will be mostly buried. The route is designed to avoid densely populated areas, but it does pass through the outskirts of several towns and villages. Areas on the pipeline route are likely to be Chapel-en-le-Frith, Macclesfield, Cranage, Tarporley, Picton, Ellesmere Port, Willaston and Leasowe in the Wirral.
The technology for moving gas around at pressure is well understood. Natural gas sometimes escapes and this can be problematic in a closed space. But natural methane gas is lighter than air and quickly disperses in open areas. In normal dilute quantities, CO2 is a harmless, non-toxic gas breathed out by humans. But it is heavier than air – nearly three times the weight of methane – and in still, windless, open air conditions it sinks like a stone to the ground, displacing oxygen, and quickly suffocates any trapped humans and animals.
If carbon capture and storage was fracking for gas, it would have been banned years ago. Pumping pressurised, suffocating gas across populated areas and tipping it into rock cavities possibly compromised by prior drilling holes might be considered slightly more dangerous than the largely invented ‘earthquakes’ said to be caused by fracking that are equivalent to someone falling off a chair. The true horror of CO2 asphyxiation was shown on August 21st, 1986, with a sudden high-pressure release of magmatic CO2 from the bed of Lake Nyos in Cameroon, killing all living beings in the surrounding villages, including 1,746 people.
This was a freak occurrence and would not happen on this scale with a rupture of the Peak Cluster pipeline. But danger on a smaller scale remains, particularly if the infrastructure is not expensively maintained to the highest standards. Needless to say, supporters of the scheme are downplaying any risks. The promoters make their safety claims, but they also hint at the large wasted costs needed for a project that is a massive wealth destroyer: “We will ensure rigorous monitoring mechanisms are in place along the CO2 pipeline. The operation of the pipeline will be monitored continuously, and block valves will be used to safely shut down the pipeline should the need arise”.
But local opposition to the pipeline is steadily growing. A Change.org petition launched last month to stop the project, noted that a CO2 pipeline in Satartia, Mississippi, ruptured and this resulted in asphyxiation and hospitalisation of 50 people, with many suffering ongoing health issues. The accident in 2020 was caused by a weld failure in a 24-inch pipe after heavy rain caused soil movement. About 6,000 tonnes of CO2 were released, and this could have been twice that amount if a proposed 36-inch Peak Cluster pipe had been used. Other local concerns have been expressed about the construction impacts on habitats, farming land and watercourse damage. Labour Wirral councillor Mark Skillicorn observed that “Wirral should not be treated as England’s carbon dioxide dump”.
The biggest danger is probably a pipe rupture in the middle of a still night next to human habitation. Sadly, that is a possibility in areas full of unknown old mines. In July 2024, a three-foot sinkhole suddenly appeared on the A6015 Hayfield Rd. Subsequent investigation linked it to a collapsed old mining culvert about 15 feet below the surface.
The sinkhole, which took a number of weeks to repair, is located about six miles from the proposed path of the Peak Cluster pipeline.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
You must be logged in to post a comment.