EPA Reverses Long-Standing Climate Change Finding, Stripping Its Own Ability To Regulate Emissions (nbcnews.com)
- Reference: 0180787632
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/02/13/1710236/epa-reverses-long-standing-climate-change-finding-stripping-its-own-ability-to-regulate-emissions
- Source link: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/climate-change/epa-reverses-endangerment-climate-change-finding-rcna258452
> The repeal of that landmark determination, known as the endangerment finding, will upend most U.S. policies aimed at curbing climate change. The finding -- which the EPA issued in 2009 -- said the global warming caused by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endangers the health and welfare of current and future generations.
>
> "We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy," Trump said at a news conference. "This determination had no basis in fact -- none whatsoever. And it had no basis in law. On the contrary, over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world."
>
> Major environmental groups have disputed the administration's stance on the endangerment finding and have been preparing to sue in response to its repeal.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/science/climate-change/epa-reverses-endangerment-climate-change-finding-rcna258452
Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when we have kings in the White House issuing decrees. A new king comes in and wipes out the decrees from the old king.
As disastrous as this sounds, the short term impact will be minimal. Companies are not going to invest in new capability without having a stable regulatory environment. If Dems lose big in Nov '26, they might then...but if Dems win big, expect companies to do nothing knowing that in 2028 the Endangerment Finding will be back and even more dire.
At the end of the day, Congress should be legislating these types of regulations and not leaving it up the current person occupying the White House. They need to get it together and do their job...or maybe "We the People" need to start doing our job instead of electing politicians that care more about their own power than they do about the future of America.
I'm a founding member of MASA - Make America Sane Again
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there will be a number of opportunities for companies to profit from the removal of the rules for as long as the rules are gone. For example, manufacturers may turn to cheaper, high GHG feedstocks over the next couple of years.
In the end, this is being done by a bunch of old scared men shouting at the future, and they will die and leave the rest of us alone. But they can certainly make things shittier until they’re gone
Re: (Score:2)
Posting to remove a mod.
Re: (Score:1)
The paradox is that all the evidence suggests that when your generation becomes their age, you'll act the same. Isn't that weird?
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect, from my perspective as a 78 year old man, I believe you could be mistaken. And with regards to the younger generation, I believe they have come up with amazing ideas that I wished had been here before.
Re: (Score:1)
Really? The boomers invented the internet and decoded the human genome, and GenX popularized the web, the millennials gave us streaming music, and Gen Z gave us crypto bros and AI. I'm not sure I'm following your logic. I'm not sure who to give credit for Amazon, but that one was pretty cool.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm not sure I'm following your logic.
That's because you're thinking in terms of massive generalizations, as if the many millions of people in each generation are all the same, move in lockstep, and are equally responsible for any given thing that happens on their watch. The people you are replying to, the logic you're not following, and I dare say reality are a bit more nuanced than that.
Re: (Score:2)
There will have to be economic sanctions to offset any gains.
Re: (Score:1)
A sense of what is already happening without any waiting for the next election or even this court decision is given in today's Guardian report about the Musk Rat is already evading EPA regulations by running gas turbines from the back of trucks to drive his xAI plants. The claim is that if the turbines are not on the ground, they are not subject to laws on the ground, despite the emissions they emit.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
> At the end of the day, Congress should be legislating these types of regulations
Absolutely. However, hyper-partisanship makes it impossible. Can you see GOP and Democrats finding common ground on this issue in 2026? Democrats are all-in on Net Zero and GOP wants to ban renewables. How can you reconcile these positions?
Re: Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:1)
By removing the gop from power through the vote. Supermajorities are generally better at getting things done. There is no requirement for a 50-50 split.
There is no requirement for a 50-50 split. (Score:3)
And yet almost every vote on anything everywhere these days seems to result in exactly that: A near-perfect 50-50 split.
That's weird, isn't it Mr Zuckerberg
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently republicans no longer believe pollution is detrimental to their health.
How the fuck am I supposed to compromise on that?
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:4, Funny)
Get them to suck some exhaust pipes if pollution is so harmless. Make it a bet or tell them it's the only way to really be macho and not gay or something. The problem should solve itself.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:4, Interesting)
> Apparently Democrats no long belive in having agriculture, industry, or transportation and want us all to subsistence starve to death to save the planet.
> How the fuck am I supposed to compromise on that?
I must have missed all that legislation. Can you link to any?
Re: (Score:3)
Compromise on what? That pollution is bad? It's a fundamental question: Is continuing to add carbon to the system a good thing, bad thing, or neutral? This administration, against the feedback from the vast majority of the scientific community, has quite literally just said "nah, it's fine". There's no compromise to be made, you either agree on the fundamentals or not. The part to compromise on is the "what should we do about it?" question, but you can't even begin to answer that question until you agree
Re: (Score:1)
There are only tradeoffs. How much pollution is acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
> There are only tradeoffs.
I agree.
> How much pollution is acceptable.
Unless we agree on the foundational "continuing to add carbon to the system is a bad thing" that "tradeoff" conversation cannot take place.
Stop giving them money (Score:5, Insightful)
Red states are [1]welfare queens [moneygeek.com].
Start by making them pull their own weight.
The next step is encouraging bottom-up independence. Pro-feudal Republicans want dependency. This is one of the reasons they fight universal health care - keeping insurance tied to employment suppresses business formation by keeping a lot of people tied to their job because of risk.
Eventually opinions and expectations shift.
In the mean time, keep pointing how how Republicans are ruining their grandkids' lives, leaving them poorer, less educated, and sicker.
[1] https://www.moneygeek.com/resources/states-most-reliant-on-federal-government/
Re: (Score:2)
#1 cost for automotive industry in the USA: Healthcare. Then we bitch about unfair Chinese subsidies because they have free healthcare... they also treat electricity like a government service... like public roads, water... Luckily, we got highways and water long before the corporatism took over or we'd be paying tolls on every road to some mega corporation (likely foreign owned) and buying jugs of water everywhere it's not profitable enough to run water pipes.
Re: (Score:3)
By removing money from politics. If you look at the world as a whole through the lens of the last 60 years you'll see a notable rise in greed. Greed for money. Greed for resources. Greed of spirit even. The human race cannot survive if we continue to capitulate to a handful of very rich people who are so mentally unstable that they will see the ruin of our biosphere for a fucking extra buck.
Re: (Score:2)
> By removing money from politics
I agree in context of Citizens United, that was catastrophically bad decision. However, how would you remove money from politics entirely? Money and political donations are not entirely the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
following the example of the Canadians would be a good start
Re: (Score:1)
> following the example of the Canadians would be a good start
What, have Washington dictate to the states like colonies, like Ottawa does with the provinces? I think you already are.
Re: (Score:1)
Canada has a different system - there are no national leader elections, they only vote for MPs (equivalent of congress). That is, most elections are a lot more localized.
Re: (Score:2)
> how would you remove money from politics entirely
By starting somewhere. Undoing Citizens United would be a great place to start. From there, any dime a politician, or their proxy, takes in has an individual's name attached to its source. If there's a political ad being shown to the public every red cent that went into it has a name attached.
Re: (Score:3)
it's not going to be popular, and I'm mixed on it as well, but here goes:
Public Financing of Campaigns.
Re: Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:2)
I say give the opponents an open-air car ride through Mexico City. I made the mistake of not getting an Uber Black and getting a regular Uber which had windows down. Myself and spouse almost puked after 10mins. The smog is absolutely terrible because they don't enforce vehicle regulations like working catalytic converters. The result is a toxic stew on the roads that will challenge your intestinal fortitude. After that experience, I'm sure they'll never talk smack about the EPA again.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Nothing in that regard changed with EPA. Catalytic converters are not going to become optional overnight. What changed is categorization of CO2 as harmful emission. You do understand the difference between soot and CO2, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
the repeal in question is just about CO2 not NOx , particulates or unburned hydrocarbons.
NBC grudgingly gets to it on TFA on a single line about 2/3rds down after several breathless paragraphs.
"""
The EPA will still regulate pollutants in tailpipe emissions that hamper air quality, such as carbon monoxide, lead and ozone.
"""
Re: (Score:3)
Please realize there is a difference between the GOP and MAGA.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure that's true anymore. It seems like most of the non Maga GOP member are retiring or otherwise leaving office.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:4, Informative)
That distinction was apparent for about 30 seconds immediately following November 3rd 2020. It vanished completely (again) the moment the run for Trump2.0 was announced. Those MAGA coattails are mighty large. You may get occasional bluster from the GOP, but when the rubber meets the road they are nearly in 100% lockstep in whatever direction MAGA is taking them.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say the distinction was visible for about 2 weeks after Jan 6, 2020. Then House Speaker Kevin McCarthy flew down to Mar A Lago to kiss the golden buttplug and make amends to the child dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
> Please realize there is a difference between the GOP and MAGA.
List things they disagree on then.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress wouldn't really change that, they've also been in the control of the anti-sciencers for long periods of time over the last 20-30 years, including right now.
The problem we have is political, not structural. There are good, good, arguments for dramatically reducing the executive's power in certain areas, and in particular making it less of a role people are excited to run for (I favor changing it to a triumvirate, with elections for one member every two years, and rotating responsibilities) but that'
Re: (Score:1)
thats not anti science because its all based on theory thats have never been able to prove or disprove it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> ...or maybe "We the People" need to start doing our job instead of electing politicians that care more about their own power than they do about the future of America.
We only had the choice between bad and worse.
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a good excuse to actively choose worse though.
Re: (Score:1)
epa takes alot of credit for things they had nothing to do it or things that simply dont work. example car emissions had nothing to do with the epa. the 70s gas crises shifted demand to small effacement cars and in turn cut emissions. then we got into the mpg wars
Re:Live by the Executive Order, die by the EO (Score:4, Informative)
And we somehow chose worse
Convince your Boomer parents and Gen x buddies (Score:5, Insightful)
To stop voting republican. They are objectively bad for the economy and the environment and everyone knows it but people keep electing them.
The problem is you have to get people away from right-wing media and 90% of all media is now owned by billionaires.
On top of that it's not socially acceptable to point out that Republicans are bad. We have been conditioned for decades that partisan politics is a no no topic. We are all just supposed to pretend that both sides bad and all politicians lie.
I fucking wish the Democrats would go back to lying to me. Even Obama never lied I think the last Democrat who told me an honest to God lie is Bill Clinton.
Lies win elections. The Democrats stop fighting dirty when LBJ was out the door and they've been getting their asses kicked ever since.
Re:No because people are fools! (Score:2)
Fools don't learn. Half the bell curve are below average and Republicans learned to outsmart slow people (and the ignorant who can be functionally stupid by falling for blatant lies) and Republicans have mastered FOOLS. Fitting they have the Clown Fool of them all as a figurehead... who even has a painted face, wig like hair, baggy clothes, he's just missing the big red nose... but he has a big red tie.
Fools can't even spot a clown if you change the colors of the outfit...
People get the government that re
Re: (Score:1)
just because you believe them does not mean there not lying
Re: (Score:2)
So let Congress debate and vote on it. Who's stopping them? Problem is that they have plenty of items on their plate, so until they address something, the executive is at liberty to make its decision. Let Congress debate that if it doesn't like what's happening
Re: (Score:1)
congress is useless on both sides. democrats with there party killing group think and the gop sitting around doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say the same thing, if the pendulum swings the other way then whats the point? All it does is create waste.
Re: (Score:2)
BECAUSE IT STILL WORKS. THINK.
The operating costs even if temporary, force adaptation to optimize. Even tiny bumps will end up with a rainy day accounting to amortize them away; as business does or whole concept of insurance is founded upon.
Remove the rules you adapted to already? then you are still prepared and just have it easier and maybe make more money. It's coming back later so if you don't learn the "crisis" will repeat until you learn to adapt. Sure, it's best to not have corruption constantly ma
Re: (Score:1)
trump cant repeal a law on his own but nice try.
fake headline (Score:1, Troll)
The rule change does not eliminate ability to regulate emissions. It merely removes the ability to regulate greenhouse gases on the pretext that they harm health. Emissions of particulates, sulfur compounds, nitrogen compounds, and other actual pollutants are unaffected, despite media morons claiming otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
> It merely removes the ability to regulate greenhouse gases on the pretext that they harm health.
This is the dumbest statement I've read today.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>> It merely removes the ability to regulate greenhouse gases on the pretext that they harm health.
> This is the dumbest statement I've read today.
Well, idk why you think it's dumb because that's exactly what the change does.
And it returns things to 2008 level, (i.e all the smog, particulates, and acid rain stuff is still in place and still being tightened. so like DEF for diesels isn't going anywhere, for good or fire bad).
and CAFE (gas mileage stuff) is still in place and authorized by a different law on energy independence grounds.
CO2 and global warming are much more an economic issue than a "health" issue. Congress can pass a law
Re: (Score:2)
> CO2 and global warming are much more an economic issue than a "health" issue.
Thank god the CEOs are alright.
> Congress can pass a law on the subject with whatever heuristics and guard rails they want.
Congress gave these agencies power in the first place. It's only a problem now because the ruling class can straight up pay for favors.
Re: (Score:1)
he deregulated diesel a wile back. cafe was outed to. yep we can acully get new Japanese k-truck in the usa now.
Re: (Score:1)
states can still regulate it how they see fit.
Don't worry (Score:1)
It will be restored with each new Democratic president, and removed again with each new Republican one, until/unless one party or the other codifies "their way" into law.
Re: (Score:1)
5% of the world's population. 100% of the hubris.
The USA is an unreliable business partner. International markets are being forced to sidestep the chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
> 5% of the world's population. 100% of the hubris.
Yeah, it's not like we ever hear hubris coming from any other country! /s
The US certainly generates an inordinate share of it - especially under the current administration - but unfortunately there's plenty of that crap that's regularly generated in pretty much every corner of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
> It will be restored with each new Democratic president, and removed again with each new Republican one, until/unless one party or the other codifies "their way" into law.
and hopefully what they codify is a reasonable middle path... neither "drill baby drill" nor "ban ICE sales by 2035"...
as much as I would hate more taxes (and the increased govt spending) and bueauricracy some kind of "carbon tax" or "global warming equivalent" tax that starts low so we can see what impacts it has would be the least distorting
Re: (Score:2)
A carbon consumption/emission fee that is rebated per capita (i.e. everyone gets the same payment) does exactly what is needed -- it helps people who can limit their carbon emissions below the national average, and it makes those emitting more than their fair share pay for the privilege.
Politically, this would be difficult but not impossible, especially if you front-loaded and gave people the payments first. Now they have the cash to pay the higher prices, unless they're emitting a lot of carbon. You woul
It's not 100% Re:Don't worry (Score:1)
It might be well over 99.5% though.
The world's heads-of-government make up most of the rest. But with less than 300 national heads-of-government and over 340 million Americans contributing to the world's hubris, it's easy to round to 100%.
Wrong parent (Score:1)
This was supposed to be a reply to [1]Re:Don't worry [slashdot.org] which said
> 5% of the world's population. 100% of the hubris.
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23916550&cid=65987010
Needs a new name (Score:5, Insightful)
It should now be called EDA, for Environmental Destruction Agency. Of course, that would necessitate new stationary, and the shredding or burning of the old stuff - an action which is perfectly aligned with their new mission.
Re: (Score:1)
Or they could just shut down that agency, and let each state regulate it as it sees fit
Re: (Score:1)
That's correct, CA already doing this, but the kicker is everything energy there is the highest cost on the planet. Me so special, need special gasoline blend. Me so special, fine the refiners. Refiners saying bye bye by spring of 2026. Over 20% refined fuels gone by 2026 and no neighboring states gives a rats ass about making CA special gasoline blends.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why it's a bad idea to shut down the agency. Pollution does not stop at state lines.
It does not stop at international lines, either, but at least international lines are broader than state lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Supply vs Demand. It is the most populated state. It has a massive amount of urban sprawl that makes for an expensive transit system; commercial too. Mountains and hills all over.
Disasters are expensive. It's so bad that construction supplies world wide have been going on because of climate disasters. Insurance too. CA had this kind of problem longer than many and it's increasing. FL has people priced out of home insurance too.
CA is phasing out gas. Cost is a great way to force the issue. Supposedly Ame
Re: (Score:2)
Because pollution always obeys state borders.
Re: (Score:3)
So the upwind state can spew pollution into a neighboring state? Brilliant!
Re: (Score:1)
it was never a finding it was a theory environment types ran with.
Totally irrelevant rage-bait (Score:2)
Loper-Bright ended the Chevron deference. Government policy no longer has any force of law at all. Legal interpretation is 100% purview of the courts. Any "rule" or "guidance" or "definition" or "determination" from the executive branch has about as much legal power as "a strong suggestion".
All of those EPA rules and regulations were rendered worthless by Loper-Brght. This so-called repeal amounts to deleting a pdf from a government server, but it'll play well on Fox. The reality now is that the courts
Sad (Score:3)
I'm saddened that our response to the huge upheaval that climate change will bring to humanity is being governed by a handful of political wedge issues and a belief that a strong enough army will allow us to win the aftermath.
Welcome to Giedi Prime (Score:1)
Where the golden T's blackend the sky and oil is the air you breathe.
Intelligence has limits... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but stupidity has infinite potential.
Re: Intelligence has limits... (Score:3)
Sometimes states are the right answer, when there is no common interstate interest. Of course rivers and air doesn't abruptly end at state lines.
Re: (Score:2)
> Sometimes states are the right answer, when there is no common interstate interest. Of course rivers and air doesn't abruptly end at state lines.
The obvious answer is to build a wall around each state extending from deep below the surface upwards to outer space then make the federal government pay for it. Problem solved.