{"id":372806,"date":"2025-03-30T10:42:17","date_gmt":"2025-03-30T08:42:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=372806"},"modified":"2025-03-30T10:42:18","modified_gmt":"2025-03-30T08:42:18","slug":"six-good-reasons-to-overturn-epa-co2-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=372806","title":{"rendered":"Six Good Reasons to Overturn EPA CO2\u00a0Ruling"},"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

Paul Driessen makes six strong points in his Town Hall article Reexamining the Obama Era Endangerment Finding<\/strong><\/a>.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The supposed climate cataclysm consensus is disintegrating under growing pressure from reality.<\/strong> Green energy subsidies, regulations and mandates are crumbling. Greenpeace has been hit with a $667-million judgment<\/a> for conspiracy, defamation, trespass, and fostering arson and property destruction.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Last year\u2019s \u201cBuy a Tesla \u2013 save the planet\u201d placards have been exchanged for \u201cmostly peaceful\u201d protests based on \u201cTorch a Tesla \u2013 save our democracy\u201d and infernos of toxic pollution and \u201ccarbon\u201d emissions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even higher anxiety is battering climate activists<\/strong> from the Lee Zeldin Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s review of EPA\u2019s 2009 \u201cEndangerment Finding\u201d (EF)<\/strong> \u2013 the foundation and justification for restrictive Obama and Biden Era standards and regulations on permissible electricity generation, automobiles, furnaces, home appliances and much more.  Six Good Reasons to Overturn:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CO2 is the Essence of Life on Earth. Damning it as a Pollutant is absurd and ignorant.<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Humans and animals exhale carbon dioxide<\/strong> when they breathe, combustion processes also emit CO2,<\/strong> and during photosynthesis plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen<\/strong>. More atmospheric CO2 helps plants grow better, faster and with less water. Nearly all life on Earth depends on this process.<\/strong> It\u2019s basic science.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s why the Clean Air Act doesn\u2019t include carbon dioxide<\/strong> in its list of dangerous pollutants<\/a>, along with carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ground-level ozone, particulates and sulfur dioxide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But fossil-fuel-hating activists blame CO2 for the alleged \u201cclimate crisis\u201d<\/strong> \u2013 and in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/a> the US Supreme Court said EPA could regulate CO2 emissions if<\/strong> the agency found that they \u201ccause or contribute\u201d to \u201cair pollution\u201d that may be \u201creasonably anticipated\u201d to \u201cendanger public health or welfare.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Obama EPA quickly determined that they did<\/strong> and issued an Endangerment Finding that gave the agency effective control<\/strong> over America\u2019s energy, transportation, industries, furnaces and stoves\u2013 indeed, over almost every facet of our lives and living standards<\/strong> \u2013 to help \u201cfundamentally transform\u201d the nation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In formulating its decision, EPA did no research of its own,<\/strong> relied heavily on GIGO computer models<\/strong><\/a> and outdated technical studies,<\/strong> dismissed<\/strong> the clear benefits of rising<\/strong> atmospheric CO2<\/strong> levels, and ignored studies<\/strong> that didn\u2019t support its decision. EPA even told one of its own experts<\/strong> (who had offered evidence and analyses contradicting official claims) that \u201cthe administration has decided to move forward [on implementing the EF] and your comments do not help<\/a> the legal or policy case for this decision.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That alone is a compelling reason for reversing the Endangerment Finding. But other realities also argue convincingly<\/strong> that EPA\u2019s 2009 action should be nullified.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

EPA had no authority to convert plant-fertilizing, life-giving carbon dioxide into a dangerous, health-threatening pollutant.<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

First, Massachusetts v. EPA has been sidelined,<\/strong> rendered irrelevant or effectively reversed.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

West Virginia v. EPA (2022)<\/strong> ruled that federal agencies may not violate the \u201cmajor questions doctrine,\u201d<\/strong> which holds that, in the absence of clear congressional direction or authorization, agencies may not make decisions or issue regulations \u201cof vast economic and political significance.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Obama EPA had no clear congressional language or authorization<\/strong> to declare that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that would likely \u201cendanger public health or welfare.\u201d The Supreme Court\u2019s minimal guidance in Massachusetts underscores the absence of congressional intent or direction. The process EPA used<\/strong> in rendering its predetermined finding demonstrates how little actual science played a role<\/strong>. And the enormous significance and impact of the EF decision and subsequent regulations can hardly be disputed.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

Similarly, the SCOTUS 2024 ruling<\/strong> in Loper Bright v. Raimondo overturned<\/strong> the court\u2019s 1984 decision in Chevron v. NRDC and ended judicial deference to government agencies (the \u201cChevron doctrine\u201d<\/strong>). Bureaucrats may no longer devise \u201creasonable interpretations\u201d<\/strong> of unclear statutory language if those interpretations would significantly expand regulatory powers or inflate private sector costs.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

These two decisions mean EPA had no authority<\/strong> to convert plant-fertilizing, life-giving carbon dioxide into a dangerous, health-threatening pollutant.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Natural Climate Forces and CO2 Benefits Were Ignored by EPA 2009 Ruling<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Second, reams of post-2009 studies and analyses<\/strong> show that CO2 is hugely beneficial to forests, grasslands and croplands \u2013 and that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) have not replaced the powerful, complex, interconnected natural forces<\/strong> that have always driven global warming, climate change, ice ages, Little Ice Ages, and extreme weather events. EPA ignored this in 2009.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Others demonstrate that there is no climate crisis, nothing unprecedented in today\u2019s climate and weather,<\/strong> and nothing modern industrialized societies cannot cope with far more easily than our ancestors did.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(See Climate Change Reconsidered II<\/a>, CO2 Coalition studies<\/a>, NOAA hurricane history<\/a>, US tornado records<\/a>, and studies the Trump EPA will undoubtedly consult during its EF reconsideration.)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Human Lives are Sustained by Hydrocarbon Fuels and By-Products<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Third, our energy, jobs, living standards, health, welfare, national security and much more depend on fossil fuels \u2013 for energy and for<\/strong> pharmaceuticals, plastics and thousands of other essential products<\/strong> that are manufactured using petrochemical feedstocks.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Developing Nations Need and Will Use More Hydrocarbons in Any Case<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Fourth, China, India and other rapidly developing nations<\/strong> also depend on fossil fuels \u2013 and in fact are increasing their coal and petroleum use every year<\/strong> \u2013 to build their industries and economies and improve their people\u2019s health and living standards. They are not about stop doing so to appease those who insist the world faces a climate crisis. That means even eliminating coal, oil, gas and petrochemical use in the United States would have no effect on global GHG emissions.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

Primary Threat to Earth Future is Losing Reliable, Affordable Energy<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the primary threats<\/strong> to human and planetary health and welfare come not from using fossil fuels \u2013 but from eliminating them,<\/strong> trying to switch to \u201cclean, green, renewable\u201d energy, and no longer having vital petrochemical products.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Britain and Germany<\/a> have shown, switching to intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar energy<\/strong> with backup power raises electricity prices to 3-4<\/strong> times what average Americans currently pay. Industries cannot compete internationally, millions lose their jobs, living expenses soar, and families cannot afford to heat their homes in winter or cool them in summertime.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thousands die unnecessarily<\/strong> every year from heatstroke, hypothermia, and diseases they would survive if they weren\u2019t so hot, cold or malnourished.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n