{"id":383925,"date":"2025-06-20T10:10:29","date_gmt":"2025-06-20T08:10:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=383925"},"modified":"2025-06-20T10:10:31","modified_gmt":"2025-06-20T08:10:31","slug":"epa-gets-moving-on-its-push-for-energy-deregulation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=383925","title":{"rendered":"EPA Gets Moving On Its Push For Energy Deregulation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Manhattan Contrarian<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0By Francis Menton<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now coming into view are the specifics of EPA\u2019s strategy to end the Obama\/Biden efforts to strangle the energy sector of the economy in the name of \u201csaving the planet\u201d from climate change. A document released by EPA last week on June 11<\/a> 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 \u2014 and effectively sidelines \u2014 the so-called Endangerment Finding<\/a>, the 2009 regulatory action that is the basis for all of the Obama\/Biden fossil fuel suppression efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cDay 1\u201d (January 20, 2025) was one titled \u201cUnleashing American Energy.\u201d<\/a> All agency heads were directed to review existing energy regulations for potential rescission as being overly burdensome. Excerpt:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2014 with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources. . . .<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On March 12, EPA followed through with an announcement of what it called the \u201cbiggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.\u201d<\/a> 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 \u201cClean Power Plan 2.0,\u201d or CPP 2.0), to rules restricting automobile emissions (and effectively mandating electric vehicles), to the massive \u201cgreenhouse gas reporting program,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As regards CPP 2.0, that ambiguity ended on June 11, when there appeared on EPA\u2019s website a \u201cpre-publication\u201d version of the document intended to initiate the rescission of CPP 2.0. The title is \u201cRepeal of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units\u201d<\/a> <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are several notable things about this document. First, it signals that CPP 2.0 will be eliminated through a process of formal \u201cnotice and comment\u201d 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 \u2014 and most significant in my view \u2014 it uses a rationale that implicitly undoes and undermines the Biden-era \u201cEndangerment Finding\u201d that underlies all of the government\u2019s greenhouse gas regulations. And it does that without ever confronting the so-called \u201cscience\u201d of greenhouse warming. I\u2019ll take these points one at a time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first seven or so pages of EPA\u2019s 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\u2019s 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!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Now to the interesting part of EPA\u2019s 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 \u201cscience\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201ca danger to public health and welfare.\u201d 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):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/em> (here, U.S. electric power plants) are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute significantly<\/em> to a danger to public health or welfare. And also, by the words of the statute, this determination is committed to the judgment<\/em> of the EPA Administrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Consistent with its ordinary meaning, the term \u201csignificant[]\u201d is defined as \u201chaving or likely to have influence or effect: important.\u201d \u201cImportant\u201d is similarly defined, in turn, as \u201cmarked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence <\/em>: <\/em><\/strong>valuable in content or relationship.\u201d Whether a source category\u2019s contribution to air pollution should be considered \u201cimportant\u201d or \u201cvaluable\u201d 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\u2019s 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\u2019s policies concerning, the source category, that source category\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Biden administration\u2019s 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the Trump EPA has also caught on that greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. power plant sector have no \u201csignificance\u201d when the broader international picture is considered. From page 63:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2014a 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is lots of other good stuff in this document \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201csignificance\u201d of U.S.-based emissions, and as to the EPA Administrator\u2019s 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 \u201cscience\u201d of global warming are going to need to totally re-tool their arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Now coming into view are the specifics of EPA\u2019s strategy to end the Obama\/Biden efforts to strangle the energy sector of the economy in the name of \u201csaving the planet\u201d 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 \u2014 and effectively sidelines \u2014 the so-called Endangerment Finding, the 2009 regulatory action that is the basis for all of the Obama\/Biden fossil fuel suppression efforts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":383928,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","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_feature_clip_id":0,"_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":[691829997,691834092,691833596,691833292,691827871,691818228,691818087,691818088,691818864,691833487],"class_list":["post-383925","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-carbon-dioxide-co","tag-clean-power-plan-2-0","tag-endangerment-finding-ef","tag-epa-environmental-protection-agency","tag-executive-orders","tag-fossil-fuels","tag-global-warming","tag-greenhouse-gases","tag-the-biden-administration","tag-us-president-donald-j-trump","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2GR-RENDER1-1536x869-1.png?fit=1536%2C869&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1BSl","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":411256,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=411256","url_meta":{"origin":383925,"position":0},"title":"Lee Zeldin Says It\u2019s \u2018Very Telling\u2019 China Wants to Keep \u2018Biden EPA Rule in Place\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin told reporters Tuesday that it is \u201cvery telling\u201d that China would want to keep a \u201cBiden EPA rule in place.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"China\"","block_context":{"text":"China","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=china"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/00Screenshot-2025-11-01-201027.png?fit=1200%2C687&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/00Screenshot-2025-11-01-201027.png?fit=1200%2C687&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/00Screenshot-2025-11-01-201027.png?fit=1200%2C687&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/00Screenshot-2025-11-01-201027.png?fit=1200%2C687&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/00Screenshot-2025-11-01-201027.png?fit=1200%2C687&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257019,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=257019","url_meta":{"origin":383925,"position":1},"title":"EPA proposes emissions standards that could kill coal, and cripple gas OFFICIAL EPA RELEASE","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/12\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"As China and India build coal plants as fast as their economies will go, the Biden Administration released plans to require carbon capture using unaffordable technology that does not really exist.\u00a0 Will this carbon power grab survive judicial review?\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"CCS\"","block_context":{"text":"CCS","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ccs"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00fairfaxphotos-Coal.webp?fit=1140%2C758&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00fairfaxphotos-Coal.webp?fit=1140%2C758&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00fairfaxphotos-Coal.webp?fit=1140%2C758&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00fairfaxphotos-Coal.webp?fit=1140%2C758&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00fairfaxphotos-Coal.webp?fit=1140%2C758&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257416,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=257416","url_meta":{"origin":383925,"position":2},"title":"Biden EPA Unveils New CO2 Crackdown On Coal & Natural Gas Power Plants \u2013 Claim to achieve \u2018climate and public health benefits\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/14\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The EPA release claimed that the new regulations would produce \u201cclimate and public health benefits\u201d worth $85 billion over the next two decades, as well as prevent premature deaths and hospital visits as a result of decreased particulate matter emissions. ...","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden Administration\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden Administration","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-administration"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00574384abba1a8.image-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C855&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00574384abba1a8.image-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C855&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00574384abba1a8.image-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C855&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00574384abba1a8.image-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C855&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00574384abba1a8.image-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C855&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293168,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=293168","url_meta":{"origin":383925,"position":3},"title":"\u2018Tremendously Damaging\u2019: Here\u2019s The Most Aggressive Restrictions Biden\u2019s EPA Pushed On Americans In 2023","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/30\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pushed several aggressive climate regulations in 2023 that could seriously harm the American economy, energy policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/OIP-2-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/OIP-2-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/OIP-2-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/OIP-2-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/OIP-2-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":284186,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=284186","url_meta":{"origin":383925,"position":4},"title":"Milloy: Biden\u2019s Kamikaze Climate Plan for the US Economy","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/20\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"First, China finally dropped its \u201cnet zero\u201d pose. The world\u2019s largest emitter had promised to reach net zero by 2060. China\u2019s primary goal is to become the lone global superpower by 2049. From Watts Up With That? Steve Milloy,\u00a0in his article for The Hill, presents a critical analysis of President\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"China\"","block_context":{"text":"China","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=china"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/biden-burning-cash.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/biden-burning-cash.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/biden-burning-cash.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/biden-burning-cash.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/biden-burning-cash.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294766,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=294766","url_meta":{"origin":383925,"position":5},"title":"Biden Admin Unveils \u2018Natural Gas Tax\u2019 Proposal","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/13\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Biden administration proposed a new regulation Friday that would impose fines on oil and gas companies for methane emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0natural_gas_burner.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0natural_gas_burner.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0natural_gas_burner.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0natural_gas_burner.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0natural_gas_burner.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383925","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=383925"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383925\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":383929,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383925\/revisions\/383929"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/383928"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=383925"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=383925"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=383925"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}