{"id":367569,"date":"2025-02-25T09:48:56","date_gmt":"2025-02-25T08:48:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=367569"},"modified":"2025-02-25T09:48:58","modified_gmt":"2025-02-25T08:48:58","slug":"dangerous-epa-ghg-endangerment-finding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=367569","title":{"rendered":"Dangerous EPA GHG Endangerment\u00a0Finding"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The news is EPA Director Zeldin has submitted recommendations to President Trump but the content has not yet been made public. How significant is this issue for climate activists? Just read the hysterical response by Sierra Club Trump, Zeldin Must Publicly Release EPA\u2019s Endangerment Finding Recommendation on Climate Pollution.<\/strong><\/a>  In italics with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People deserve to know if their government plans
to terminate their right to breathe clean air<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous<\/strong> released the following statement<\/strong>:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe EPA\u2019s mission is to protect human health and the environment, and any revocation or weakening of this life-saving action would endanger both. Denying both science and the Supreme Court<\/strong> to further unravel the Clean Air Act would be a slap in the face to the children and elderly suffering from asthma or COPD<\/strong>, the victims of extreme weather-fueled wildfires and floods,<\/strong> and to every person wanting clean air to breathe.<\/strong> The American people deserve answers from this administration on whether or not they plan to further ignore the law and science to put polluters over people.<\/strong> The Sierra Club is prepared to pursue all legal avenues and use every tool at its disposal to protect the American people and avert the very worst of the climate crisis.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then there\u2019s the facts:<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The origin of this insane mass delusion, it\u2019s spurious codification into regulations and the necessity of dumping it once and for all is explained by Chris Talgo in his Town Hall article\u00a0The EPA\u2019s Endangerment Finding Belongs on the Ash Heap of History<\/strong><\/a>. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most Americans have probably never heard of the\u00a0Endangerment Finding<\/a>, however, this obscure rule has effectively allowed the federal government\u00a0to label carbon dioxide a harmful \u201cpollutant\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This is a prime example of\u00a0government gone wild.<\/strong>\u00a0The\u00a0Clean Air Act<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0was never\u00a0intended<\/strong>\u00a0to allow the EPA to declare carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant. Rather, it was designed\u00a0to \u201caddress the public health and welfare risks posed by certain widespread air pollutants.\u201d<\/strong>It is important to note that in 1963, when the Clean Air Act was initially passed,\u00a0carbon dioxide was not listed<\/strong>\u00a0as an \u201cair pollutant.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1. Change in Gross Domestic Product<\/strong><\/em>
and Six Common Air Pollutants, 1980\u20132018<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data | Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. *The index begins at 1 in 1980, with the exception of PM2.5, which was measured beginning in 2000. The index for each year is the actual value divided by the initial value.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Fast-forward to\u00a01999.<\/strong>\u00a0As the\u00a0EPA<\/a>\u00a0notes, \u201cOn October 20, 1999, the International Center for Technology Assessment and 18 other environmental and renewable energy industry organizations filed a\u00a0petition seeking the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from on-road vehicles<\/strong>\u00a0under the Clean Air Act.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As happens all too often in our over litigious modern society, this \u201cpetition\u201d eventually became a lawsuit.<\/strong> In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/strong> that \u201cgreenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act<\/strong> and that EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although this is the standard interpretation of the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling,
it is not necessarily the correct interpretation.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the majority opinion<\/a>,<\/strong> authored by former Justice John Paul Stevens, \u201cWe need not and do not reach<\/strong> the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding,<\/strong> or whether policy concerns can inform EPA\u2019s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, the Supreme Court decision<\/strong> did not determine that carbon dioxide is a harmful air pollutant. Instead, it simply stated that the EPA has the authority to decide<\/strong> whether carbon dioxide is a harmful greenhouse gas if and only if that is supported by unequivocal data.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

A more recent Supreme Court decision in 2022, West Virginia v. EPA<\/a>,<\/strong> provides even more grounds for the Endangerment Finding to be rescinded.<\/strong> In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court decided<\/strong> that the Obama-era Clean Power Plan<\/a> was unconstitutional<\/strong> because it violated the letter of the law under the aforementioned Clear Air Act. Specifically, the Court cited the \u201cMajor Questions Doctrine<\/a>,\u201d<\/strong> which clearly states \u201cthat if an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, its action must be supported by clear congressional authorization.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Incredibly, this is the first time the Supreme Court
had cited the Major Questions Doctrine in a ruling.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court\u00a0ruled in favor of West Virginia and essentially reprimanded the EPA<\/strong>\u00a0to stay strictly within its constitutional guardrails,\u00a0bodes well<\/strong>\u00a0for those who believe\u00a0the Endangerment Finding is unconstitutional and should be eliminated.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if that is not convincing enough, consider that the Endangerment Finding is predicated on flawed science<\/strong> to begin with. Despite the insistence by the EPA that carbon dioxide is a harmful pollutant that is driving an existential climate crisis, the facts and data say otherwise<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the past few decades, climate alarmists and environmental zealots<\/strong> have been somewhat successful in fooling too many Americans into believing that carbon dioxide emissions must be eliminated no matter the cost.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

However, the\u00a0cost of demonizing carbon dioxide<\/strong>\u00a0as a harmful pollutant is\u00a0immense<\/strong>. By vilifying CO2 and attempting to regulate it to death, the EPA has absolutely harmed tens of millions of Americans with higher energy bills<\/a>.<\/strong>\u00a0Moreover, the EPA\u2019s absurd notion that carbon dioxide is a harmful air pollutant has put the entire\u00a0U.S. energy grid at risk.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we enter the AI age,<\/strong> there will be an enormous demand for dependable and affordable energy.<\/strong> The only energy sources that can deliver reliable and cost-effective energy (aside from nuclear) for the United States to remain the global leader in the AI arms race necessarily produce carbon dioxide emissions. Put simply, if we do not eliminate the Endangerment Finding and free ourselves from its shackles,<\/strong> the United States will not be able to keep pace with the Communist Chinese Party in the worldwide battle for AI supremacy.<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Most Americans have probably never heard of the\u00a0Endangerment Finding, however, this obscure rule has effectively allowed the federal government\u00a0to label carbon dioxide a harmful \u201cpollutant\u201d\u00a0that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This is a prime example of\u00a0government gone wild.\u00a0The\u00a0Clean Air Act\u00a0was never\u00a0intended\u00a0to allow the EPA to declare carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":367587,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691829997,691818424,691833542,691833292,691833541,691822390,691818670],"class_list":{"0":"post-367569","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-carbon-dioxide-co","9":"tag-clean-air-act","10":"tag-endangerment-finding","11":"tag-epa-environmental-protection-agency","12":"tag-mass-delusion","13":"tag-regulations","14":"tag-supreme-court","16":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0GettyImages-157442068.webp?fit=2135%2C1405&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1xCx","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":426214,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426214","url_meta":{"origin":367569,"position":0},"title":"Trump Administration Ends Obama-Era Climate Finding, Repeals Vehicle GHG Standards","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"14\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin and alongside President Trump, finalized a major rule that revokes the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, a landmark Obama-era determination that greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide endanger public health and welfare. This finding had served\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden and Obama administrations\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden and Obama administrations","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-and-obama-administrations"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":400855,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=400855","url_meta":{"origin":367569,"position":1},"title":"What is the Scientific Threshold for GHG Endangerment?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/09\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Today, I explain why the acceptance of just these claims provides a sufficient basis under the\u00a0U.S. Clean Air Act\u00a0(CAA) to find that greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) endanger public health or welfare. The quote above comes from the executive summary of the much-discussed\u00a0report\u00a0of the Department of Energy\u2019s Climate Working Group (DOE\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"2009 EPA Endangerment Finding\"","block_context":{"text":"2009 EPA Endangerment Finding","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=2009-epa-endangerment-finding"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":426833,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426833","url_meta":{"origin":367569,"position":2},"title":"Endangerment Finding Rescission Victory for Science and Law","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"18\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin in the Trump administration, finalized a rule rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206528,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206528","url_meta":{"origin":367569,"position":3},"title":"All Eyes on SCOTUS: Supreme Court to Issue Climate Endangerment Finding Ruling \u2013 To Decide if EPA, or Congress, has authority to regulate CO2","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/06\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"From Climate Depot The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).The primary plaintiff of the case is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey; he is joined by attorney generals from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425649,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425649","url_meta":{"origin":367569,"position":4},"title":"EPA Endangerment Finding Was\u00a0Pre-Cooked","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2009 Endangerment Finding which determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) like CO\u2082 endanger public health and welfare was predetermined politically rather than based on open scientific deliberation.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":427141,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=427141","url_meta":{"origin":367569,"position":5},"title":"EPA\u2019s elegant arguments for endangerment repeal","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"20\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"EPA\u2019s arguments for repealing the Obama endangerment finding are simple, clear, and strong. So, they have a likely chance of winning in the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), which is where the final decision will be made.","rel":"","context":"In \"automobiles\"","block_context":{"text":"automobiles","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=automobiles"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367569","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=367569"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367569\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":367589,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367569\/revisions\/367589"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/367587"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=367569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=367569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=367569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}