Tag: executive orders

What’s Up With The Endangerment Finding Litigation?

Have you heard of the “Endangerment Finding” (EF)? You have if you have been reading this blog for any period of time. The 2009 EF is likely the most consequential, expensive and destructive regulatory action ever put in place by the federal bureaucracy. In that action, EPA claimed to find that carbon dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases” constitute a “danger” to human health and welfare.

From The Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

Have you heard of the “Endangerment Finding” (EF)? You have if you have been reading this blog for any period of time. The 2009 EF is likely the most consequential, expensive and destructive regulatory action ever put in place by the federal bureaucracy. In that action, EPA claimed to find that carbon dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases” constitute a “danger” to human health and welfare. Using the EF as the predicate, the administrative state under the Obama and Biden presidencies implemented dozens of major regulations intended to transform the entire energy sector of the U.S. economy. Obama/Biden regulations based on the EF sought, for example, to force the closure of all fossil-fuel based power plants; to end the production of internal-combustion-based cars in favor of electric cars; to restrict drilling for oil and for natural gas; to halt construction of pipelines; and many, many other such things.

The total cost was heading well into the trillions when President Trump returned to office in 2025. One of Trump’s first day Executive Orders in his second term directed all agencies to “review” and then begin to “suspend, revise, or rescind” all agency actions “identified as unduly burdensome” to U.S. energy production. EPA promptly began a lengthy regulatory process to rescind the EF. The final rule doing away with the EF became final on February 13, 2026. I had a post reporting on the rescission on February 15.

If it withstands court challenges, the rescission of the EF is a death blow against the entire and vast climate grift industry. Obviously the rescission was going to unleash a tsunami of litigation. In case you are wondering what is going on in that litigation, I spent some time today reviewing the docket, and there are several things to report. The bottom line is that the court in question — here the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit — does not appear to be in any hurry to move things along. That is a major concern, because in my view the biggest risk to the Trump administration position is that the case does not reach decision in the Supreme Court before the end of Trump’s term.

I suppose it is good news in this instance that the relevant statutes force all the litigation challenging this regulatory action to go to one court, the DC Circuit. This is in contrast to various other litigation onslaughts against the Trump administration, where the government’s adversaries can shop around the country to find favorable District Court judges to hear the cases. (Example of this phenomenon: cases challenging immigration enforcement.). And thus, even though dozens of plaintiffs have filed cases challenging rescission of the EF, all these cases are getting consolidated, and will be heard together. Also good news is that the DC Circuit is already an appeals court, and only one level below the Supreme Court. Thus, there will not be an intervening level of appeal before the Supremes get the case.

But the bad news is that the DC Circuit is not a favorable forum for the Trump administration. Of its eleven active judges, seven were appointed by Democrats (either Obama or Biden) and only four by Republicans (three Trump and one George H.W. Bush). All of the seven Democratic appointees are reliable partisans.

So what has happened in the nearly four months since EPA finalized the rescission? Remarkably little. In particular, there does not appear to be any scheduling order to start the briefing.

Petitions from every left-wing NGO known to man began to flood in starting on February 18. Initially, eight cases were opened, but quickly consolidated under the index number of the first one to be filed, which is known as the American Public Health Association case. Yes, the American Public Health Association has decided to stake what remains of its reputation on the position that the trace non-toxic gas CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow a danger to public health. These are the same people who covered themselves with shame in the Covid disaster. The number of Petitioners is way too many to list here, but includes most Democrat-led states, all the big enviro groups that you have heard of (e.g., Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, etc.), and plenty of other random lefty NGOs who should stick to things they know something about (e.g., American Lung Association).

By early March, Motions to Intervene started arriving. These basically come from the normal people and entities who don’t want to leave EPA all alone to defend this action against the swarm of crazies. On March 6, 25 Republican-led states filed such a motion. Among many other would-be intervenors are various trade associations (e.g., American Petroleum Institute), and even the CO2 Coalition (of which I am a member).

But other than that, the case has just sat there. The court has not yet issued a scheduling order, telling the parties when their main briefs are due. On April 22 the court issued an Order denying a request that “briefing proposals” be filed by April 27, and instead directed that the parties (Petitioners and Respondents — nothing about Intervenors) file “procedural” motions by May 20, and “dispositive” motions by June 4. In that same Order, the court stated that it would not ask the parties to file “briefing proposals” until after it had decided any procedural or dispositive motions.

May 20 and June 4 came and went without the filing of any “dispositive” motions that I can find. However, there is one procedural motion worth mentioning. On the May 20 deadline, a group of individual petitioners, most going only by their initials, filed a motion asking the court to “stay” EPA’s rescission of the EF pending the court’s review of that action. If that seems innocuous, I think it means that these petitioners are asking the court to force EPA and the administration to continue the Obama/Biden process of shutting down the fossil fuel economy for the next two or three years while the DC Circuit thinks about what to do next.

The petitioners making this motion are a collection of individuals from what are often called the “youth” climate cases — groups of children and teenagers, Greta Thunberg wannabes if you will, claiming that their lives are somehow being ruined by the burning of fossil fuels. And what is the basis on which they seek their “stay”? Here is their first argument:

The Repeal Rule Violates Petitioners’ Fundamental Free Exercise Rights Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Repeal Rule substantially burdens Petitioners Elena, J.K., M.D., and E.S.’s sincerely held religious beliefs. “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it can demonstrate the burden furthers “a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” . . . The Repeal Rule pressures E.S., J.K., and M.D. to modify their behavior in a way that seriously violates their sincerely held religious beliefs by forcing a choice between adherence to their religious tenets, and protecting their health and safety. Petitioners E.S. and J.K. are observant Jews whose religion requires them to walk to synagogue on the Sabbath. . . . M.D. is an observant Muslim whose religion requires her to fast during Ramadan. . . . Each Sabbath that is made too hot for E.S. and J.K. to walk safely to synagogue, and each day of Ramadan that is made too hot for M.D. to safely fast and wear hijab, is a day they are prevented from observing important requirements of their religions.

You literally can’t make this stuff up. And here is their second argument:

The Repeal Rule Violates Petitioners’ Rights to Life and Liberties Under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Petitioners may not be “deprived of life . . . without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. . . . GHG emissions from the Repeal Rule further disrupt Earth’s energy imbalance [sic] in a way that increases heat, wildfires, and wildfire smoke that injures Petitioners’ lives and health. . . . More wildfire smoke exposure exacerbates Elena’s and Maya’s asthma and Elena’s serious infections, which are life-threatening conditions.

It goes on and on (and on and on) from there.

As of today, it does not appear that the government has filed a response to this motion. As absurd as it seems, this entire enormous case is being held up by this ridiculous motion.

Of course, the case doesn’t have to be held up for this. It is being held up because the DC Circuit is allowing it to be held up. Which gets to the real issue: Is the DC Circuit going to game the scheduling of this case in order that it can’t be decided by the Supreme Court until after Trump has left office? If that occurs, it would of course give a potential incoming Democratic administration in 2029 the ability to reverse course on the regulations. Such an administration might, for example, announce that it is re-instating the EF and agreeing with the position of the petitioners in the litigations.

Perhaps I am being too cynical. But sometimes it is impossible to be too cynical.

The microreactor race is on

For the past half century, successive presidential administrations and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have thwarted the development of advanced reactor designs that might fulfill President Eisenhower’s vision for the “peaceful uses of atomic energy.”

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

For the past half century, successive presidential administrations and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have thwarted the development of advanced reactor designs that might fulfill President Eisenhower’s vision for the “peaceful uses of atomic energy.”

That all changed last May, when President Trump issued four executive orders aimed at reinvigorating the U.S. nuclear energy industry. The Trump orders addressed advance reactor technologies – from microreactors to small modular reactors, all the way up to advanced tech versions of the water-cooled reactors that power every active U.S. nuclear power plant.

Trump also pledged to revamp the NRC to cut costs and timeframes for bringing new nuclear energy facilities – of all sizes – into production. This revolutionary move ended decades of bureaucratic overkill that choked off what could have long been a preeminent energy driver.

Nine months later, multiple private companies are racing to become the first to bring their advanced design reactors to market, and several are already moving toward pilot plants in conjunction with governmental or academic institutions and funding.

The Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program, which is fast-tracking the testing of advanced reactor designs, selected 10 companies to compete to reach criticality (a state where nuclear fission reactions become stable and self-sustaining) by the nation’s 250th birthday celebration on July 4. The hope is that at least three of the 11 projects will meet that milestone.

The chosen cupcake stealer’s dozen includes Aalo Atomics Inc., Antares Nuclear Inc., Atomic Alchemy Inc., Deep Fission Inc., Last Energy Inc., Oklo Inc. (two projects), Natura Resources LLC., Radiant Industries Inc., Terrestrial Energy Inc., and Valar Atomics Inc. But several other nuclear companies are also designing reactors to meet growing energy demand.

The Defense Department’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations (ANPI) program began in 2024, but last April the DOD selected eight companies to work to provide microreactors for U.S. military installations. Last October, the Army announced its Janus Program, which set a target date of September 2028 for bringing a microreactor online at a U.S. military base.

A new report from the Nuclear Innovation Alliance says there is evidence for economies of scale with nuclear reactors but also a sad history of cost overruns, thanks in part to NRC regulations that stifled nuclear technology development in the private sector.

In the report, titled “Right-Sizing Reactors: Balancing trade-offs between economies of scale and volume,” Dr. Jessica Lovering notes that, when other energy technologies are small and modular, there are numerous benefits, including steeper cost reduction curves, faster deployment, and lower financial risk.

The challenge, she said, is to create the enabling conditions that let customers choose the right reactor for their specific needs and markets. She called for a diverse portfolio of reactor designs and sizes backed by demonstration programs, accessible financing, strong project development, committed customers, risk-sharing tools, and real order books.

If, she concluded, industry, government, investors, and civil society can build that kind of enabling environment, the potential is great for cost declines on the scale of what solar and wind have achieved. And nuclear has reliability advantages over both.

Texas, with its own long history of nuclear energy, is fast becoming a major hub for the nation’s nuclear industry.

The newly created Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office is working to promote and develop these advanced nuclear reactor projects. Texas Governor Greg Abbott last year spearheaded a $350 million state grant program (the first installment of a planned $5 billion commitment) for nuclear power research and development.

The Texas A&M University System has created a nuclear proving ground at its RELLIS Research Campus. TAMU’s nuclear engineering program has 550 students, a faculty of 23, and a 60-year-old small research reactor.

Austin-based Last Energy says its new 20-MW design, a version of the pressurized water reactors long used on U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, will begin splitting atoms in July. But Last, aiming to be first, is planning to build a 5 MW version for the DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program.

Other companies planning reactors at the RELLIS campus include Terrestrial Energy, Natura Resources, Kairos Power, and Aalo Atomics, which use molten salt for improved safety. Designers say these advanced reactors will shut down on their own without releasing radiation.

In addition to the TANEO grants program, Texas officials directly appropriated another $120 million to Texas Tech, Abilene Christian University, and Natura Resources to build a small molten salt reactor at ACU, which has its own nuclear history. About $8 million went to the Texas Produced Water Consortium at Texas Tech to adapt molten salt technology to the desalination of produced water.

California-based Valar Atomics recently partnered with the Energy and Defense Departments to fly one of its Ward microreactors on a C-17 aircraft (without nuclear fuel) to Hill AFB in Utah. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and DOD Under Secretary Michael Duffey joined the reactor on the flight, which demonstrated that these portable reactors can be quickly deployed on both military and natural disaster battlegrounds.

Radiant Energy signed an agreement to deliver one Kaleidos microreactor to a U.S. military base in 2028 and inked a deal with data center operator Equinix to supply dozens to power its facilities. Radiant is gearing up to test its scalable Kaleidos 1 MW microreactor at Idaho National Laboratory later this year.

Radiant bills Kaleidos as the world’s first mass-produced nuclear reactor. Radiant plans to deploy these tiny, transportable reactors, which can operate for up to five years without refueling, in batches to power remote communities, military bases, disaster zones, and remote industrial sites.

Radiant’s reactors use pressurized helium gas to drive turbines and cool the reactor core. Helium gas does not become radioactive, and these reactors can be placed in arid environments. Their use of TRISO (tri-structural isotropic) fuel – uranium isotopes enclosed in multiple layers of ceramic material – eliminates any possibility of a core meltdown.

While the U.S. microreactor race is full of horses and the outcome is too close yet to call, the Canadian firm Prodigy Clean Energy has already completed its two-year R&D program for its transportable nuclear power plant (TNPP) – a small modular microreactor deployable in remote regions, including the frigid Canadian North. The effort was aided by a Canadian government investment of CAN$2.75 million.

Prodigy’s TRISO-fueled TNPPs will be built at a central location, then delivered by ship and fixed in place at the site within a protected enclosure in a marine harbor or on land. Fueling and final commissioning will be done before startup. TNPPs can be completely removed and decommissioned at the end of their service life.

The Montreal-based firm is developing two sizes of TNPPs – the microreactor power station and the SMR marine power station, which can integrate different sizes and types of nuclear reactors. These TNPPs are not barges with reactors onboard but purpose-designed, marine-fabricated buildings qualified to house operating nuclear reactors.

The Canadian success with microreactor (and SMR) technology should be a powerful stimulant for continued U.S. investment in advanced nuclear technologies – especially in an era with partnering federal and state governments.

Nuclear opponents remain well organized, but its actual (rather than perceived) safety record and its increasing versatility and reliability make nuclear an increasingly attractive option.

That’s why this well-funded race is on.

This article originally appeared at RealClear Energy

Judge dismisses suit by young climate activists

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by young climate activists that aimed to halt Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders.

A group of young climate activists standing in front of a government building, one speaking into a microphone with a banner that reads 'LET THE YOUTH BE HEARD'.

Plaintiffs had ‘overwhelming evidence’ of climate crisis, but a court injunction would be ‘unworkable’, ruling says

By Maya Yang

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by young climate activists that aimed to halt Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders. The Guardian has the story.

The dismissal by US district judge Dana Christensen on Wednesday came after 22 plaintiffs, ages seven to 25 and from five states, sought to block three of the president’s executive orders, including those declaring a “national energy emergency” and seeking to “unleash American energy” – as well as one aimed at “reinvigorating” the US’s production of coal.

According to the plaintiffs, the executive orders amount to unlawful executive overreach and breach the state-created danger doctrine – a legal principle designed to prevent government officials from causing harm to their citizens.

Among the plaintiffs were also several young individuals who had previously been part of the landmark 2023 Held v Montana case – the first constitutional climate trial in the United States. In that case, a judge ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs who argued that the Montana state government had violated their constitutional right to a healthy environment.

In Wednesday’s ruling, Christensen said that the plaintiffs presented “overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels”.

However, Christensen said: “Yet while this court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged [executive orders’] effect on carbon dioxide emissions, this concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act.”

He added: “Granting plaintiffs’ injunction would require the defendant agencies, and – ultimately – this court, to scrutinize every climate-related agency action taken since” the start of Trump’s second presidency on 20 January 2025.

“In other words, this court would be required to monitor an untold number of federal agency actions to determine whether they contravene its injunction. This is, quite simply, an unworkable request for which plaintiffs provide no precedent,” Christensen continued.

Read the full story here.

Dana L. Christensen

Dana Lewis Christensen (born May 23, 1951) is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Montana.

On May 4, 2011, President Barack Obama nominated Christensen to a vacant seat on the United States District Court for the District of Montana

EPA Gets Moving On Its Push For Energy Deregulation

Now coming into view are the specifics of EPA’s strategy to end the Obama/Biden efforts to strangle the energy sector of the economy in the name of “saving the planet” from climate change. A document released by EPA last week on June 11 lays out the plan for repeal of the absurd (and dangerous) regulation that would have ended use of fossil fuels to generate electricity by some time in the 2030s. This EPA document is particularly interesting for the way it treats — and effectively sidelines — the so-called Endangerment Finding, the 2009 regulatory action that is the basis for all of the Obama/Biden fossil fuel suppression efforts.

From Manhattan Contrarian

 By Francis Menton

Now coming into view are the specifics of EPA’s strategy to end the Obama/Biden efforts to strangle the energy sector of the economy in the name of “saving the planet” from climate change. A document released by EPA last week on June 11 lays out the plan for repeal of the absurd (and dangerous) regulation that would have ended use of fossil fuels to generate electricity by some time in the 2030s. This EPA document is particularly interesting for the way it treats — and effectively sidelines — the so-called Endangerment Finding, the 2009 regulatory action that is the basis for all of the Obama/Biden fossil fuel suppression efforts.

President Trump made it clear from the first day of his new administration that he intended to undo as many as possible of the Obama/Biden era burdens and restriction on American energy production and use. Among the Executive Orders that Trump signed on “Day 1” (January 20, 2025) was one titled “Unleashing American Energy.” All agency heads were directed to review existing energy regulations for potential rescission as being overly burdensome. Excerpt:

Sec. 3.  . . .  (a)  The heads of all agencies shall review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, settlements, consent orders, and any other agency actions . . . to identify those agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources — with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources. . . .

On March 12, EPA followed through with an announcement of what it called the “biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.” The announcement identified and listed some 31 EPA regulations and programs as unduly burdening the American economy, and therefore targeted for extinction. These ranged from rules designed to eliminate fossil fuel-fired power plants (called “Clean Power Plan 2.0,” or CPP 2.0), to rules restricting automobile emissions (and effectively mandating electric vehicles), to the massive “greenhouse gas reporting program,” and many, many more. The first item at the top of the list for elimination was CPP 2.0. However, at that time, the actual process for rescinding these various rules had not yet begun, and it remained unclear what approach EPA might take to effect the rescissions.

As regards CPP 2.0, that ambiguity ended on June 11, when there appeared on EPA’s website a “pre-publication” version of the document intended to initiate the rescission of CPP 2.0. The title is “Repeal of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units” The actual regulatory rescission process formally begins when this document gets published in what is called the Federal Register. Apparently, that will occur tomorrow, June 17.

There are several notable things about this document. First, it signals that CPP 2.0 will be eliminated through a process of formal “notice and comment” rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Second, it lays out the schedule and procedures for the rescission, thus giving an indication of when the process will be concluded (and ripe for judicial review). Third, it provides the rationale for the rescission, grounding that rationale in the language of the relevant statute (here Clean Air Act Section 111). And fourth — and most significant in my view — it uses a rationale that implicitly undoes and undermines the Biden-era “Endangerment Finding” that underlies all of the government’s greenhouse gas regulations. And it does that without ever confronting the so-called “science” of greenhouse warming. I’ll take these points one at a time.

The first seven or so pages of EPA’s document set forth the procedure and schedule of the prospective rescission. There will be a virtual public hearing 15 days after Federal Register publication (thus, in early July). Comments will be due 45 days after Federal Register publication. That means that the comment period can be closed by some time in early August. After that, EPA must respond to the comments before finalizing its action. They will want to be careful in doing that. (Any slip-up can give an opening to a court to enjoin its action.) However, relative to other rule makings, there will be no occasion in this one to modify the rule’s language in response to comments, since the rule is being eliminated entirely. I highly doubt that any commenter is going to dissuade the current EPA from rescinding this rule. While this is somewhat speculative, I expect that the rescission can be finalized by early fall. And then, on to the litigation!

Note that EPA is not taking the alternative route of just asserting that CPP 2.0 is illegal as unauthorized by the Clean Air Act and beyond the powers of the executive branch pursuant to the Major Question Doctrine as articulated in West Virginia v. EPA. The administration may well use that theory as an alternative basis to support repeal of CPP 2.0 when their regulatory action gets challenged in court. However, I think they are wise to add a second rationale to support the repeal.

Now to the interesting part of EPA’s document. The basic approach to getting rid of CPP 2.0 is not to try to attack it on the basis of the badly flawed so-called “science” of greenhouse gases and global warming. Rather, the approach is to carefully parse the language of Clean Air Act Section 111 to emphasize words that were ignored or downplayed in the previous regulatory actions.

Many discussions of the Obama-era Endangerment Finding speak of EPA supporting its prior regulatory action by having made a determination that greenhouse gases constitute “a danger to public health and welfare.” That is a shorthand which I admit I have myself been guilty of using. But the actual words of the applicable statute are different. Here are the relevant words of Clean Air Act Section 111(b)(1)(A):

[The EPA Administrator] shall include a category of sources in such list [of sources of pollutants] if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

Thus, it is not sufficient to satisfy the words of the statute that greenhouse gases in the aggregate or in general might be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in some way. Rather, there must be a determination that emissions from this category of sources specifically (here, U.S. electric power plants) are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to a danger to public health or welfare. And also, by the words of the statute, this determination is committed to the judgment of the EPA Administrator.

There is some endless discussion in the document of the impact of these semantic nuances. Here is a small sample from pages 52-53:

Consistent with its ordinary meaning, the term “significant[]” is defined as “having or likely to have influence or effect: important.” “Important” is similarly defined, in turn, as “marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence : valuable in content or relationship.” Whether a source category’s contribution to air pollution should be considered “important” or “valuable” entails consideration of the influence, effect, or usefulness of finding such contribution. If regulating emissions of a particular pollutant from a source category would have little effect on dangerous air pollution, that source category’s contribution to the air pollution is not significant. By the same token, if regulating emissions would not be useful, taking into account, inter alia, the impacts on, and the Administration’s policies concerning, the source category, that source category’s contribution to the air pollution is not significant. An inquiry into the effect of a finding of significance necessarily involves policy considerations that will inform any subsequent regulation when making the significance determination in the first instance.

The Biden administration’s CPP 2.0 had sought to eliminate fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing an uneconomic requirement of carbon capture and storage on any such remaining plants. But this document explains that that approach cannot comply with the statutory text:

Thus, the control options available to reduce GHGs from fossil fuel-fired EGUs [Electricity Generating Units] are not permissible as BSER {Best System of Emissions Reduction], not adequately demonstrated, cost unreasonable, or potentially ineffective in reducing emissions. Because it is likely that the Agency may be unable to develop a BSER that would result in any meaningful, cost-reasonable GHG emission reductions, the contribution of this source category to GHG air pollution is not significant.

And the Trump EPA has also caught on that greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. power plant sector have no “significance” when the broader international picture is considered. From page 63:

Unlike other air pollutants that can have a localized or regional impact and direct consequences to human health, GHGs are global pollutants. The share of GHG emissions from the U.S. power sector, including CO2, to global concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere is relatively minor and has been declining over time. In 2005, U.S. electric power sector GHG emissions comprised 5.5 percent of total global GHG emissions. This percentage has fallen steadily since then to 4.6 percent in 2010, to 3.7 percent in 2015, and comprising 3 percent of total global emissions by 2022. This relative decline is driven in part by increases in GHG emissions from developing countries that are rapidly electrifying and increasing their energy demands, including through the robust deployment of fossil fuel-fired EGUs —a trend that is likely to persist going forward. Further, many other countries burn much more coal than is utilized by the U.S. power sector. For example, in 2024, China used more than 13 times as much coal as the U.S. . . . Limiting the use of coal and other fossil fuels in U.S. EGUs does not significantly impact global GHG concentrations when other countries continue to increase their use of fossil fuels.

There is lots of other good stuff in this document — far more than I can quote here. To be fair, EPA is following the tried and true regulatory strategy of burying the public in verbiage as a way to make it as difficult as possible for a court to intervene.

As can be seen from the above, this proposed regulatory action relates to CPP 2.0 specifically, and not to the Endangerment Finding more generally. Nevertheless, the logic expressed in this document has the effect of undermining the EF and rendering it essentially ineffective. The same arguments as to “significance” of U.S.-based emissions, and as to the EPA Administrator’s right to exercise his judgment under statutory language, will apply to all other sectors where the Obama/Biden administrations had sought to suppress the use of fossil fuels. All the environmental groups that have been gearing up to defend the “science” of global warming are going to need to totally re-tool their arguments.

Trump Administration Expedites Approval for New Uranium Mine in Utah

The reopening of this mine aligns with Trump administration push to expedite the development of U.S. nuclear energy capacity.

From Watts Up With That?

Legal Insurrection

The reopening of this mine aligns with Trump administration push to expedite the development of U.S. nuclear energy capacity.

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

I recently wrote about the numerous positive developments related to the mining and processing of critical minerals, such as rare earths, outside of China, which were supported by two key executive orders from President Donald Trump.

I can now report even more success in domestic mine expansion. The Trump administration recently approved the reopening of the Velvet-Wood uranium and vanadium mine in southeastern Utah, marking the first mining project to be permitted under a new, dramatically accelerated environmental review process.

The decision, executed by the Department of the Interior, was made in just 14 days…a stark contrast to the months or years such reviews typically require.

“This approval marks a turning point in how we secure America’s mineral future,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum in a statement. “By streamlining the review process for critical mineral projects like Velvet-Wood, we’re reducing dependence on foreign adversaries and ensuring our military, medical and energy sectors have the resources they need to thrive. This is mineral security in action.”

The Velvet-Wood mine, near Utah’s Lisbon Valley, will produce both uranium and vanadium. The former can be processed into fuel for nuclear reactors, while the latter is commonly used in steel alloys.

The announcement comes 11 days after the Interior Department ordered the Bureau of Land Management to review the mine’s environmental impacts within 14 days, as opposed to the prior timeline of months or years.

The fast-tracking follows a January executive order from President Donald Trump declaring a “national energy emergency.”

The mine is set to be reopened by Canadian company Anfield Energy. Anfield Energy’s main business is the development of energy metals, with a particular emphasis on uranium and vanadium resources. The company aims to become a top-tier supplier of energy-related fuels, positioning itself as a key player in the emerging nuclear energy sector in North America.

The company’s website heralds the astonishing potential of the Utah mine.

Acquired alongside the Shootaring Canyon Mill in 2015, this project holds significant historical mineral resources. With measured and indicated categories containing 4.6 million pounds of U3O8 ([uranium oxide] 0.285% grade) and inferred categories holding 552,000 pounds of U3O8 (0.320% grade) and7.3Mlbs of V2O5 ([Vanadium Oxide] 0.404% grade), Velvet-Wood demonstrates its potential.

From 1979 to 1984, the project yielded significant results, recovering around 4 million pounds of U3O8and 5 million pounds of V2O5 from mining approximately 400,000 tons of ore with grades of 0.46% U3O8 and 0.64% V2O5. The Velvet mine retains underground infrastructure, including a 3,500 ft long,12′ x 9′ decline to the ore body. As Anfield Energy’s most advanced uranium asset, Velvet-Wood signifies a potential near-term path to uranium and vanadium production.

Of course, environmental activists are unhappy with this decision and pulling out the usual assortment of complaints….especially those associated with uranium. As an additional bonus, some “social justice” complaints are being tossed into the mix for variety.

“There’s a reason environmental reviews usually take time,” said Nancy Blackwell, policy director at the Western Public Lands Alliance. “Rushing through this process under the banner of ‘national security’ opens the door to costly mistakes and overlooked harms—especially when uranium, with its toxic legacy, is involved.”

Critics also question the need for domestic uranium and vanadium production at this scale, pointing to the global oversupply of uranium and the long lead time required to bring nuclear facilities online. They argue that the real driver behind the project may be political symbolism rather than genuine energy urgency.

Meanwhile, the Grand Canyon Trust and other advocacy organizations have called for a halt to mining near culturally and ecologically sensitive areas, citing concerns about contamination from past uranium operations still affecting Native communities.

If they’re unhappy, I am happy.

The reopening of this mine pairs well with the Trump administration’s push to expedite the development of our nuclear energy capacity. I am looking forward to writing about the construction of projects and facilities listed in the four executive orders related to the rapid deployment of next-generation nuclear technologies in this country, which Trump also has signed.

Offshore Wind: GAO Report Reveals the Fallout of Biden’s Green Industrial Gamble

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just issued a comprehensive review of the Department of the Interior’s offshore wind energy program. Titled “Offshore Wind Energy: Actions Needed to Address Gaps in Interior’s Oversight of Development” (GAO-25-106998), the report provides a postmortem of sorts on a policy agenda that—until recently—was speeding ahead under the Biden administration with the vigor of a runaway freight train.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just issued a comprehensive review of the Department of the Interior’s offshore wind energy program. Titled “Offshore Wind Energy: Actions Needed to Address Gaps in Interior’s Oversight of Development” (GAO-25-106998), the report provides a postmortem of sorts on a policy agenda that—until recently—was speeding ahead under the Biden administration with the vigor of a runaway freight train.

,gao-25-106998Herunterladen

Today, under President Trump’s 2025 executive orders, the brakes have been applied. No new leasing. No new permits. A full federal review is underway. But this report serves as a sobering account of how rapidly U.S. federal agencies pursued offshore wind energy projects with insufficient oversight, unanswered environmental questions, and minimal accountability to affected communities.

From Acceleration to Suspension: What Changed

Until January 20, 2025, the Biden administration had aggressively pushed offshore wind as a climate panacea. Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) granted 39 commercial leases, with active construction and permitting underway across the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By executive memorandum, however, President Trump halted further expansion. Federal agencies are now barred from issuing new leases, permits, or approvals pending a top-to-bottom review of wind leasing and permitting practices.

The Trump administration’s actions may have been prescient. The GAO’s findings paint a picture of regulatory agencies that were never ready for prime time.

Environmental Impacts: Uncertainty Was the Norm

Despite the scale of construction under Biden’s offshore wind policy, environmental impacts remained largely speculative:

“Because it is early in U.S. deployment of commercial offshore wind projects, the extent of some impacts is unknown. Moreover, uncertainty exists about long-term and cumulative effects…”​

This was no minor oversight. Projects proceeded without a robust understanding of how wind farms would affect marine life, sediment ecosystems, regional currents, or migratory species.

The GAO highlighted threats to marine mammals—especially from pile-driving noise, vessel traffic, and acoustic interference. Meanwhile, the potential for radar disruptions and impacts on national defense systems were flagged but not resolved.

Under Trump’s executive orders, these risks are now under renewed scrutiny, but the damage from rushed permitting remains in motion.

Communities and Cultures Marginalized

Perhaps the most damning section of the GAO report is its treatment of stakeholder engagement—or the lack thereof. BOEM’s tribal consultation was, in GAO’s words, largely symbolic. While Tribes were invited to comment on projects that impacted their cultural landscapes and fishing rights, few received follow-up, and even fewer saw their concerns reflected in final decisions:

“BOEM documents indicate that it received tribal officials’ concerns but do not consistently demonstrate efforts to consider or address these concerns.”​

This failure was systemic. GAO found that nearly all Tribes lacked the capacity to engage with BOEM due to funding limitations and technical hurdles. Congress was advised to amend Interior’s authorities to allow direct tribal support—but that never happened under Biden. It may happen under Trump, but it will take more than good intentions to rebuild trust.

The fishing industry was treated similarly. BOEM’s task forces excluded many commercial fisheries stakeholders, and proposed compensation frameworks remained in draft limbo as turbines rose out of the sea. As of the GAO’s writing, affected fishermen still had no clear pathway for redress.

Regulators Absent From the Field

Perhaps most absurdly, BOEM and its enforcement sibling, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), lacked even a physical presence in the North Atlantic—the epicenter of early construction. All oversight was managed remotely from Washington, D.C., or Sterling, Virginia:

“Neither agency has taken the necessary steps to establish a physical office for that region…”​

It is difficult to imagine a more emblematic example of bureaucratic detachment.

GAO’s Recommendations

GAO’s report ended with a slate of five recommendations for BOEM and BSEE, and a separate directive to Congress. These included:

  • Improving tribal consultation transparency
  • Documenting how fisheries concerns are incorporated
  • Issuing enforceable standards for community engagement
  • Establishing regional field offices
  • Requiring data-sharing for environmental monitoring​

Interior agreed with all five recommendations—unsurprising, given that the wind had already shifted in Washington. What remains to be seen is whether any of these changes are implemented now that the Biden-era green push has been halted.

Wind’s Reckoning

The GAO report is both a technical analysis and a political indictment. Under the Biden administration, offshore wind energy development was fast-tracked based on aspirational benefits and unsupported assumptions. Environmental risks were minimized, communities were marginalized, and national defense concerns were inadequately addressed.

Now, with offshore wind on pause, the Trump administration has the opportunity—and the obligation—to assess what went wrong. GAO’s findings suggest that a full reset is not only justified but essential.

This was not just a mismanaged rollout. It was an ideologically driven industrial policy masquerading as science-based planning. That story is now written in steel towers in the sea—and in a GAO report that may finally force Washington to reckon with reality.

Teardrops at the National Science Foundation

WTF is a “higher education lobbyist?” And who pays his or her salary? Taxpayers? If it’s already so easy to win a National Science Foundation grant, that 25% of applicants win awards, it’s way too easy for these people to win a taxpayer-funded lottery. Dropping the success rate to 10% seems like a good start. It would force more competition for funding. It might actually lead to research projects that deliver tangible results, like we have to deliver in the private sector. And, hopefully, it would weed out useless crap.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest “DOGE, baby, DOGE!” by  David Middleton,

I receive daily emails from the American Association of Science of America (News From Science), listing some of their latest headlines. I subject myself to this torture because it’s a great source of material for me to mock and ridicule in WUWT posts. This morning’s News From Science was a treasure trove of ridicule-worthy material.

  1. Male chimps ask for sex in different ‘dialects’
  2. Earth’s inner core might harbor volcanoes and landslides
  3. Spacecraft probing cosmic evolution spies an ‘Einstein ring’
  4. Alzheimer’s scientist resigns after university finds ‘data integrity concerns’ in papers
  5. How a cancer researcher lost a gender-related grant to Trump’s executive orders
  6. ‘My boss was crying.’ NSF confronts potentially massive layoffs and budget cuts
  7. NIH slashes overhead payments for research, sparking outrage and lawsuit
  8. Congress could soon erase Biden rules on archaeology, climate, and the environment
  9. ‘Madness’: Trump freeze on global HIV prevention efforts sparks disbelief, anger
  10. New journal co-founded by NIH nominee raises eyebrows, misinformation fears

Since I am too cheap to actually subscribe, I can only get access to a few articles per month. So I zeroed in on headlines 5 and 6, because 5 seemed to really justify 6.

Science Insider: Science and Policy

‘My boss was crying.’ NSF confronts potentially massive layoffs and budget cuts

Trump could propose slashing agency’s budget by two-thirds
7 Feb 2025

Two major political bombshells hit the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) this week. The first was an official communication from the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM): Prepare for the possible layoff of half of your 1600-member staff as soon as this spring. The second, still a rumor, is equally shocking: President Donald Trump may ask Congress to cut your $9 billion budget by two-thirds.

The potential double whammy came as NSF has suspended business as usual to find out whether any research it is already funding clashes with a series of executive orders issued by Trump, including one to stop efforts to increase workforce diversity. And it has sparked anxious discussion of what such massive cuts would mean for the second-leading government funder of U.S. academic research behind the National Institutes of Health.

[…]

“My boss was crying when she told us,” says one NSF employee who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal. “This is not something NSF wants to be doing,” the employee says. “But they weren’t given a choice.”

[…]

The White House is floating a $3 billion number for NSF, sources tell Science. By comparison, the agency’s current budget is $9.1 billion, and former President Joe Biden’s 2025 request, submitted in March 2024, was for $10.2 billion.

[…]

Such cuts would likely force NSF to eliminate large portions of its broad portfolio, which ranges from operating one-of-a-kind telescopes at the South Pole to supporting elementary school science and math education. And it would almost certainly reduce a researcher’s chance of winning an NSF grant—currently one in four—to the point that researchers might look elsewhere for support.

“I mean, if the success rate drops to 10%, why bother even applying?” says one higher education lobbyist. “Researchers may decide to leave the United States if they can’t get funding here.”

[…]

Science!

Having worked in the private sector since 1981 and having paid a buttload of income tax over the past 44 years, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these people because…

That said, this quote probably irked me the most:

“I mean, if the success rate drops to 10%, why bother even applying?” says one higher education lobbyist.

WTF is a “higher education lobbyist?” And who pays his or her salary? Taxpayers? If it’s already so easy to win a National Science Foundation grant, that 25% of applicants win awards, it’s way too easy for these people to win a taxpayer-funded lottery. Dropping the success rate to 10% seems like a good start. It would force more competition for funding. It might actually lead to research projects that deliver tangible results, like we have to deliver in the private sector. And, hopefully, it would weed out useless crap like this:

Science Insider: Science and Policy

How a cancer researcher lost a gender-related grant to Trump’s executive orders

“Unethical, unlawful, inhumane”: NIH-backed scientist decries termination of study collecting data on sexual orientation and gender identity of cancer patients
7 Feb 2025

Late last week, George Washington University (GWU) cancer researcher Mandi Pratt-Chapman received a shocking phone call. Because of an executive order by President Donald Trump that has widely disrupted research related to gender or diversity being done by federal workers or U.S.-funded scientists, she and her colleagues had been ordered to immediately stop work on a large-scale cancer study funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). The project, which explores the best ways to collect information on sexual orientation and gender identity of cancer patients, was already one-third of the way through data collection.

[…]

Science Advisor

Yes, I know that the NIH is not the NSF. However, they are both funded by taxpayers and they both spend our money on frivolous projects.

I have lost family members to cancer. My wife survived a brain tumor 20 years ago and is currently battling lymphoma. I am a huge supporter of cancer research… Provided the research is targeted at treating, if not curing cancer. According to her LinkedIn profile Mandi Pratt-Chapman has a BA, MA and PhD in English and a PhD in… wait for it… “Translational Health Sciences”… WTF?

Every dollar spent on crap like this, is a dollar not spent on trying to cure or even treat cancer…

More than ever before, today’s health care leaders are faced with complex challenges to translating evidence to practice that require navigating geographical, organizational, economic, cultural, and professional barriers. These challenges are formidable and multifaceted, so the solutions must be robust, comprehensive, and draw on cross-disciplinary knowledge representative of multiple and novel perspectives.  Effective leaders who can close the gap between evidence generation and implementation are needed in every aspect of the healthcare arena, including research laboratories, clinics, community settings, classrooms, boardrooms, and both government and non-government organizations.

Conducting research in our challenging health care environment requires a basis in translational research, a cross cutting approach that connects basic biomedical discovery to global population health impact.

The PhD in Translational Health Sciences program draws on Implementation Science, which investigates the processes and strategies influencing the distribution of evidence-based health care from the clinical research stage into effective treatment options.

Are you a mentor seeking to educate the next generation of health care professionals? Are you a change agent seeking to make meaningful contributions to widespread implementation of evidence-based care for complex health issues? 

GW School of Medicine & Health Sciences

Mrs. Middleton gets irate every time a medical form asks about her “sexual orientation” and she goes postal when they ask about her gender, particularly if there are more than two choices. The fact that the money I earned and the government confiscated is being spent on a project “which explores the best ways to collect information on sexual orientation and gender identity of cancer patients” makes me want to go dump a cargo of tea into the harbor!

It is high time to DOGE the NSF!

27% Of National Science Foundation Grants Went To DEI Projects, Study Finds

‘Congress must end the politicization of NSF funding and restore integrity to scientific research,’ Sen. Ted Cruz says

By  Luke Rosiak

Feb 10, 2025

The National Science Foundation spent more than $2 billion funding “science” projects that were often more about activism and critical race theory than science, the Senate Commerce Committee found.

The committee found that one in 10 grants awarded between January 2021 and April 2024 had to do with oppression, social or environmental justice, gender, or race. The figure was dramatically higher in grants issued more recently, as what counted as “science” transformed dramatically under the Biden administration.

“While only 0.29% of all grants with start-dates in 2021 centered on DEI initiatives, by 2024, more than a quarter (27%) of new grants pushed far-left perspectives,” the Commerce Committee said in a report released Monday.

[…]

Cruz said that wasn’t the only way DEI activism masquerading as research was harming real scientists, saying it also reduced the public’s confidence in the field as a whole. 

[…]

Some papers from left-wing academics have said that the scientific method, the written word, and hard work are all racist, making it all the more surprising that mainstream scientists have failed to condemn it.

[…]

In 2022, NSF gave a $4.4 million grant to Columbia University to “decolonize geoscience.” Another million dollars went to a project that says that physics is racist. 

[…]

The Daily Wire

As a geologist I just had to explore the project to “decolonize geoscience.”

THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK

08/30/2022 – 10/31/2027 $4,421,998

Implementation grant: implementing novel solutions for promoting cultural change in geoscience research and education (inspire) -implementing novel solutions for promoting cultural change in geoscience research & education (inspire) program delivers a multi-faceted solution for transforming culture, shifting power, and authentically engaging underserved communities within the transdisciplinary earth and environmental sciences. Inspire will mentor, train, and develop early-career researchers and professionals historically underrepresented in the geosciences. By strengthening relationships between research institutions and minority serving institutions (msis), inspire will decolonize geoscience, prioritize engagement of communities through co-design of research programs, and promote the equitable sharing of geoscientific knowledge broadly across our nation. Inspire will foster a just, equitable , and inclusive geoscience research community that reflects the diversity of the nation and is rooted in multi-directional listening and knowledge transfer. Inspire will focus on two cohort populations of future geoscience leaders at the transition points where they are often lost: 1) prior to graduate school; and, 2) prior to tenure. Bridge scholars (post-baccalaureates) will be supported and trained through a climate-focused bridge-to-phd program that will include enrolling in graduate-level classes, participating in research, and launching an evidence-based self-affirmation component, the armor project. Visiting fellows (early career faculty/researchers at msis) will gain skills and experience for developing community-focused geoscience research through their home institutions with collaborative support from – and partnerships with – columbia university scientists. Reciprocal visits from columbia hosts/mentors to the visiting fellow home institutions will be an integral part of their collaboration and will strengthen institutional partnerships. Participants from both cohorts will engage with communities in new york city to gain experience with community-focused co-design of geoscience research. The columbia geoscience community, including its alumni, will participate in coordinated action of mentoring and support, and will offer networking opportunities to members of both cohorts. A council of cultural advisors of scientists and scholars from msis and bipoc leaders in stem will provide guidance and feedback on program directions through communications and biannual meetings. Together with their mentors, host and collaborators, inspire?s 14 visiting fellows and 16 bridge scholars will become agents of change who will propagate aspects of this novel research and education ecosystem into multiple institutions. Inspire will deliver novel solutions for systemic change and cultural transformation long overdue in the geosciences. It will support and sustain diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (deia)-centered programs, and will create resources and opportunities for new programs to flourish. The envisioned cultural transformation will increase the creativity, equity, relevance, and impact of geoscience. This award reflects nsf’s statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the foundation’s intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.

The Daily Wire

I now need a shot of vodka and a BC Powder. While, there’s room to debate how much taxpayer money should be spent on complying with meaningful regulations, protecting the environment and tangibly useful scientific research, we shouldn’t be spending a penny on DEI and other social engineering efforts!

“For far too long, the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday. “This is so wasteful! I have instructed my Secretary of the US Treasury to stop producing new pennies.”

Fox News

It’s time to DOGE, DOGE with “extreme prejudice”!

For those not keeping up with current events:

What is DOGE? Here’s what to know about Elon Musk’s latest cost-cutting efforts.

By Aimee Picchi

Edited By Alain Sherter

Updated on: February 10, 2025

The White House’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, was created by President Trump on Jan. 20 with a mission to slash federal spending. Since then, the task force led by billionaire Elon Musk says it has saved more than $1 billion by canceling diversity, equity and inclusion contracts, among other expenses, according to DOGE’s social media account.

[…]

CBS News

Null and void?

Laws in every state govern wills and the transfer of estates and property upon a testator’s death. For example, Virginia statutes provide that “any individual may make a will,” except testators who are unemancipated minors or “of unsound mind.”

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

Laws in every state govern wills and the transfer of estates and property upon a testator’s death. For example, Virginia statutes provide that “any individual may make a will,” except testators who are unemancipated minors or “of unsound mind.”

Unsound mind generally means not having mastery of one’s mental faculties, which could include being enfeebled enough that the testator is easily subject to improper influence by others, especially someone who would benefit from provisions of the will.

Virginia law considers someone to be of unsound mind if his or her cognitive capacity is totally impaired, meaning the person is incapable of acting rationally or understanding conversations, instructions or decisions. In other jurisdictions, impairment may not have to be “total.” Wills executed by such persons are rendered invalid, null and void.

How might these guidelines apply in other circumstances – decisions by President Biden, for instance?

Joe Biden’s declining mental and physical capabilities were apparent to many even before his election and inauguration. His Delaware basement campaign, to avoid awkward encounters with reporters and citizens, raised many questions. During his presidency, family, White House staff, legacy media, Democrats in Congress and others worked hard to hide, obfuscate, defend and excuse his infirmities, even as they became harder to deny.

Millions wondered just when President Biden became cognitively incapable of leading the United States and Free World. His inability became so obvious during the June 2024 Biden-Trump debate that Democrat Party leaders pushed the 46th president out of the race. But what about before that?

An article published shortly before President Trump’s 2025 inauguration revealed that House Speaker Mike Johnson knew Mr. Biden was no longer “in charge” of the White House, presidency or country long before his cognitive incapacities were finally acknowledged by those whose jobs, prestige or political agendas depended on him being “the best Biden ever.”

During a January 2024 Oval Office meeting with President Biden, the Speaker particularly wanted to discuss a Biden Executive Order that blocked liquefied natural gas exports to Europe. Russia’s war with Ukraine, the likelihood of renewed European dependence on Russian gas if US LNG exports were terminated, and the extent that would enrich Putin’s war machine made this a serious national security issue. Johnson wanted to know WHY Biden had signed the EO just weeks earlier.

“I didn’t do that,” Biden insisted. But in fact, he had.

Johnson suggested that Biden’s staff print the EO, so that the two of them could read it together. Biden finally, but vaguely, acknowledged signing the order. But as PJ Media columnist Matt Margolis noted, it soon “became evident that the President had no grasp” of actually having signed the EO, or of the implications of having done so.

“I thought, we’re in serious trouble. Who is running the country?” Margolis quoted Johnson. “I don’t know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn’t know,” either, Johnson added.

“This exchange underscores a chilling reality,” Margolis wrote. We had a president who not only was “struggling to remember critical decisions” but was also “unable to engage fully in high-stakes discussions with national security implications.” Biden was clearly “not fully in charge.”

When did that incapacity actually set in? And what does that imply for dozens, perhaps hundreds, of executive actions, regulatory sign-offs and presidential signatures enacting legislation into law?

Are they still valid? Or have some (or many) been rendered null and void, because President Biden was no longer in control of his mental faculties? Or because he was enfeebled enough that he was subject to improper influence by staffers who were pursuing agendas even more radical than the president would have agreed to, had he actually been “in charge,” including staffers who might benefit from certain presidential decisions?

Executive Orders can be reversed by EOs signed by a successor president. President Trump did that with a flurry of signatures during his first week in office. Formal rulemakings must go through a more lengthy and thorough process but can still be undone or rewritten by another administration.

That will certainly be the case with the Obama EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” declaring that plant-fertilizing, planetary-life-giving carbon dioxide “endangers human health and welfare.”

However, the Biden Administration promulgated 3,248 final rules and regulations – a record 107,262 Federal Register pages. They reflect President Biden’s determination to exert federal control over nearly every aspect of climate change, “equity and social justice,” economic and environmental issues, and our daily lives – including “efficiency” rules for cars, stoves, dishwashers, furnaces and water heaters.

Many of these rulemakings will undoubtedly be examined and reversed under the Congressional Review Act. Others will fall outside its purview and require more than Trump Executive Orders.

And what about Biden’s pardons, many of them murderers and hardened criminals; others convicted offenders like his son; still others people who haven’t yet been charged or convicted of crimes but were given preemptive pardons, in case prosecutors later decide no one should be above the law?

Still more complicated will be legislation, such as the multi-trillion-dollar, pork-laden, Green-New-Deal-subsidizing Inflation Reduction Act, the $1-trillion infrastructure law, the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and many others signed by Mr. Biden.

If they merit revision or recission, must Congress and President Trump go through an entire legislative process – and overcome almost certain Democrat “resistance” – to change or cancel them?

Or do some of these Biden Era laws (and regulations and pardons) fall within the parameters of a wills and estates “unsound mind” analog? If so, at what point was President Biden too cognitively impaired to know what he was agreeing to or signing? Who makes that determination, and on what basis?

It’s definitely a case of first impression, and the outcomes are far from easy, ensured or predictable. But it’s also another way for President Trump and Republicans to reexamine extreme Biden Era decisions.

I went to law school, was licensed in two states, practiced mostly legislative and regulatory law, even wrote a couple of Supreme Court briefs. But mostly I’ve been a policy wonk – pondering, developing, promoting, opposing, and implementing or rejecting public policies.

The Biden cognitive issue reminds me of humorist Will Rogers’ answer to the threat of World War I German U-boats that were savaging Allied shipping. Rogers proposed that the US Navy “heat the Atlantic Ocean to the boiling point. Then, when the ocean gets too hot for them German subs to stay underwater, they’ll have to come to the surface” and we can “pick ‘em off one by one.”

Of course, he averred, some admirals were likely to ask how they were supposed to boil the ocean. Rogers had an answer. “I leave that to the technicians. Myself, I’m a policy man.”

Like Will Rogers, I’m just presenting policy ideas. It’s up to President Trump, Congress, courts and neuropsychologists to figure out how to implement them.

The Endangerment Finding: It Looks Like Trump 2.0 Will Be Much More Fun Than Trump 1.0

The first couple of days of the new Trump administration have seen the President sign a blizzard of Executive Orders. These provide more material than a humble solo blogger like myself can ever comment on comprehensively. So I’ll just have to start with one particular item that I am deeply familiar with: the EPA’s so-called Endangerment Finding of December 2009.

From Manhattan Contrarian

 By Francis Menton

The first couple of days of the new Trump administration have seen the President sign a blizzard of Executive Orders. These provide more material than a humble solo blogger like myself can ever comment on comprehensively. So I’ll just have to start with one particular item that I am deeply familiar with: the EPA’s so-called Endangerment Finding of December 2009.

I have seen differing counts of the number of Trump’s first-day EOs. ABC News here counts 42. One of the most consequential has the title “Unleashing American Energy.” There is a large amount of important material in this EO. In overall summary, it directs the reversal of all of the Biden administration efforts to restrict and suppress the production and development of America’s energy resources. But one provision, I would argue, is important above all the rest. That is Section 6(f), which directs a reconsideration of the so-called Endangerment Finding (EF) of December 2009. That provision of the EO reads as follows:

(f)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the EPA, in collaboration with the heads of any other relevant agencies, shall submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).

This provision is of overriding importance because, as long as the Endangerment Finding remains on the books, it gives a license to the courts, and to activist left-wing judges anywhere in the federal system, to enjoin and undo all the other de-regulatory efforts of this and other energy-related EOs. However, if the EF is rescinded with a well-reasoned and well-supported basis, then all the other energy-related initiatives will have a far clearer path to success.

Background on the EF will help readers to understand its significance. Back in the early 2000s, as the climate scare was cranking up, activists got the idea of trying to get the courts to compel EPA to regulate (and suppress) fossil fuels through getting CO2 declared a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. A group of states, led by Massachusetts and New York, petitioned EPA to declare CO2 a “pollutant,” which would then give EPA the ability, and arguably even the obligation, to regulate CO2. Since CO2 is an inherent product of fossil fuel combustion, “regulation” of CO2 emissions could include anything up to and including banning fossil fuel combustion entirely if EPA so decided. Such a ban would outlaw 80+% of the current U.S. energy system.

Those opposing this gambit responded that the Clean Air Act was never intended to deal with CO2, which is colorless and odorless and non-toxic and is an inherent product of the large majority of energy production and consumption. But the language of the Clean Air Act, passed in 1970, was of course vague enough to give an opening. Here is the relevant language of Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as it existed at the time the Massachusetts/New York case made it to the Supreme Court:

“The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare … .”

Other similar provisions gave the EPA Administrator comparable authority to regulate “pollutants” from sources other than motor vehicles.

So the statute defines “pollutant” to mean anything that, in the “judgment” of the EPA Administrator, “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” During the administration of George W. Bush, despite the states’ petition, EPA declined to make such a finding as to CO2. So Massachusetts, New York, and co-plaintiffs sued to try to compel EPA to make that finding. In 2007, that case reached the Supreme Court. Here is the Court’s Opinion, issued under the caption Massachusetts v. EPA. In summary, the Court ordered EPA to make a determination whether CO2 was or was not a “pollutant,” in the sense of constituting a “danger to public health or welfare.”

To its shame, the GW Bush people punted this determination over to the Obama administration, which then took office in 2009. The Obama people got right to work, and to no one’s surprise, issued a long regulatory document in December 2009 finding that CO2 did indeed pose a danger to human health and welfare, and thus was a “pollutant” subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. This is the document known as the Endangerment Finding, that is referenced and cited in Trump’s EO.

The EF then gave the Obamanauts license to go wild regulating CO2. As one extreme example, the Obama people promulgated what they called the Clean Power Plan, which, by ratcheting down allowable CO2 emissions over time, would have forced the closure of essentially all fossil fuel power plants.

That is where things stood when the Trump 1.0 administration took office in January 2017. I and many others were hopeful that the new administration would roll back many of the destructive anti-energy policies of the Obama people, but at the same time we were wary that any de-regulatory initiatives would get blocked by the courts, using the EF as the basis. After all, if EPA had found CO2 to be a danger to human health and welfare, then how could it fail to take efforts to restrict emissions?

As Trump took office in 2017, it was unclear to us whether the new President or his people had any concept of the drastic significance of the EF. And thus, a group known as the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) was formed to petition EPA to rescind the EF. That entity filed a Petition to EPA on January 20, 2017 — the first day of the Trump 1.0 administration. I acted as one of the lawyers for CHECC. Fundamentally, the idea was to bring this issue to the attention of the new Trump EPA and make sure that they paid attention to it. We also presented compelling scientific evidence as to why the idea that CO2 was a “danger” was preposterous.

Somewhat to our surprise, our Petition was then completely ignored. Over the course of four years, we continually tried to get information as to what was going on (with little success), and also filed seven supplements to our Petition, each bringing to bear new scientific articles or evidence making clear that CO2 was not at all a “danger” to human health and welfare. But through the entirety of Trump 1.0, there was no action on this issue. On January 19, 2021 — that is, one day before leaving office — the Trump EPA denied our Petition with a one-paragraph summary dismissal. The incoming Biden administration then took another year and three months and came out with a much longer and more devious denial of our Petition in April 2022.

Many readers here are undoubtedly familiar with the saga of our efforts after that denial. We could have just given up, but we had the idea that if we saw this through the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court, we might get a decision compelling a reconsideration of the EF just in time for a new Trump administration to take office. With such a decision, the Trump people could no longer ignore this issue, and would be forced to look at it. However, our efforts were unsuccessful in both the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court. Our petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on December 11, 2023. For those interested, here is a link to the court dockets of the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court for these cases.

During the months since the recent election, I have been involved in many discussions about whether a new petition process should be started to try to get the EF rescinded this time around. And now suddenly,, upon entering office, Trump 2.0 immediately is taking on the Endangerment Finding, without any new petition getting filed at all. Hallelujah! Somebody over there must finally understand the importance of this. Maybe even the Donald himself! I would like to think that our previous efforts had something to do with educating Trump and his people, although I have no way of knowing that.

The job of rescinding the EF does not have to be difficult. The EF itself is totally full of holes. All EPA has to do to make for a bullet-proof rescission is to cite some dozens of scientific papers in the fifteen years since the EF that collect evidence contradicting the hypothesis of catastrophic CO2-caused warming. Lots of very knowledgeable people stand ready to help, including the members of the CO2 Coalition, which is a collection of eminent scientists that consider the EF to be thoroughly flawed.

I don’t mean to be overly optimistic, but I’ll make this prediction: If the EF is rescinded with a well-reasoned regulatory action, the courts will have little to no ability to stop the Trump roll-back of all the Obama/Biden restrictions on fossil fuels and energy transition. And after four years in which essentially all of those restrictions have been undone, and in which the EPA has been swept clean of climate activists, the ability of the government ever again to try to force an unwanted energy transition will be gone for good.

UPDATE, January 23:

I thought it would be appropriate to add to this post a word of thanks for those who participated in our effort from 2017 to 2023 to try to get a reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding. These people and organizations included:

(1) Jim Wallace. Jim was the lead author of several scientific papers that formed the principal basis for the challenge to the EF. The gist of these papers was that the existing empirical evidence was insufficient to conclude that greenhouse gases including CO2 had had a statistically significant impact on global temperatures, after accounting for natural factors like solar irradiation, volcanoes and ocean currents. (Note that we never argued that CO2 does not cause any warming, or that evidence disproved any relationship between CO2 and temperatures, but only that the claim that greenhouse gases including CO2 were causing dangerous warming was unproved and could not be proved with existing evidence.)

(2) Co-authors with Jim Wallace on the scientific papers included Joseph D’Aleo (of the icecap.us website), John Christy (of the University of Alabama at Huntsville), and Craig Idso (of the co2science.org) website.

(3) Jim Wallace also became one of the members of CHECC and helped round up a motley group of co-members. Joe D’Aleo also joined as a member of CHECC.

(4) Harry MacDougald (of the law firm Caldwell, Carlson, Elliott & DeLoach in Atlanta) was my co-counsel. Harry is much more knowledgeable than I about administrative law, and he is the one who made the argument in the D.C. Circuit.

(5) The Competitive Enterprise Institute and FAIR Energy Foundation also joined us as petitioners before EPA to seek reconsideration of the EF. FAIR also joined with us in the appeal process.

All of the above people and organizations participated in this effort on a pro bono basis. If we have made a small contribution to rescuing the country from the Net Zero energy transition disaster, it was well worth it.

Making Climate Policy Sane Again – The Climate Realism Show #142

The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely are joined by special guest Myron Ebell, who was on President Trump’s EPA Transition Team for his first term, to break down what these reversals of radical climate and energy policy will mean for America and the world. We will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week.

The Heartland Institute

President Trump wasted no time after his inauguration on Monday reversing all of his predecessor’s executive orders that made climate alarmism and “green” energy the focus of American government. He didn’t just reverse bad policies, and pull us out of the Paris Climate Agreement, he went farther than he did in his first term to ramp up American energy production and rein in an Environmental Protection Agency that regulated far beyond its mandate. Among at least 47 climate- and energy-related EOs signed in the first 24 hours of his swearing-in was one tackling what has long served as the keystone of limitless environmental regulation: the “endangerment finding” for carbon dioxide emissions. May we finally see the end of the EPA’s abuse of its regulatory power?

The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely are joined by special guest Myron Ebell, who was on President Trump’s EPA Transition Team for his first term, to break down what these reversals of radical climate and energy policy will mean for America and the world. We will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week.

Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET (noon CT) and jump in the chat to offer your comments and questions for us.