MAGA wants the nation to stick its head into the sand about #ClimateChange.
-
"While many industry groups backed the repeal of vehicle emission standards, many were reluctant to show public support for rescinding the endangerment finding because of the legal and regulatory uncertainty it would unleash.
Last month, the American Petroleum Institute said it supported a repeal of the endangerment finding for vehicles but said it should be left in place for stationary sources"
EPA to repeal its own conclusion that greenhouse gases warm the planet and threaten health
"Known as the endangerment finding, the decision is the legal framework that allows the EPA to regulate emissions. Its reversal could upend many climate change policies."
-
EPA to repeal its own conclusion that greenhouse gases warm the planet and threaten health
"Known as the endangerment finding, the decision is the legal framework that allows the EPA to regulate emissions. Its reversal could upend many climate change policies."
As a friend remarked:
"The long-term background scheming over many years is operatic in scope.
And the crazy details, like Mandy Gunasekara being the same woman who handed Sen James Inhofe that snowball all those years ago, make this a rich read."
Same friend gave a gift link, no registration required:
-
As a friend remarked:
"The long-term background scheming over many years is operatic in scope.
And the crazy details, like Mandy Gunasekara being the same woman who handed Sen James Inhofe that snowball all those years ago, make this a rich read."
Same friend gave a gift link, no registration required:
" “The proposal pretty much threw spaghetti on the wall,” says Rachel Cleetus, UCS. “There's just all kinds of arguments, all of them without merit”
“I will eat my car if they get upheld on the science,” says Parenteau.
It’s guaranteed that several environmental groups will immediately launch a challenge to the EPA’s new rule. Legal experts tell WIRED that it’s also clear that the EPA is seeking to take this struggle directly to the Supreme Court."
https://www.wired.com/story/the-fight-over-us-climate-rules-is-just-beginning/
-
" “The proposal pretty much threw spaghetti on the wall,” says Rachel Cleetus, UCS. “There's just all kinds of arguments, all of them without merit”
“I will eat my car if they get upheld on the science,” says Parenteau.
It’s guaranteed that several environmental groups will immediately launch a challenge to the EPA’s new rule. Legal experts tell WIRED that it’s also clear that the EPA is seeking to take this struggle directly to the Supreme Court."
https://www.wired.com/story/the-fight-over-us-climate-rules-is-just-beginning/
"The administration is misleadingly claiming that climate regulations increase the cost of cars and trucks. In fact, as Dana Nuccitelli reported last fall, “This argument neglects the cost savings from reduced vehicle fueling bills and lessened climate damage. The Biden EPA estimated that its 2023 vehicle tailpipe rules would have generated about $1 trillion in net benefits over the next three decades.” "
-
"The administration is misleadingly claiming that climate regulations increase the cost of cars and trucks. In fact, as Dana Nuccitelli reported last fall, “This argument neglects the cost savings from reduced vehicle fueling bills and lessened climate damage. The Biden EPA estimated that its 2023 vehicle tailpipe rules would have generated about $1 trillion in net benefits over the next three decades.” "
The headline not seen inside the United States:
Trump drops key US climate rule, swaps health for cheap cars
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-drops-key-us-climate-rule-swaps-health-for-cheap-cars/a-75939736
-
The headline not seen inside the United States:
Trump drops key US climate rule, swaps health for cheap cars
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-drops-key-us-climate-rule-swaps-health-for-cheap-cars/a-75939736
"By the numbers: The firm projects that without big EPA rules underpinned by the finding, U.S. emissions in 2035 would be 26-35% below 2005 levels.
If the rules were intact? A steeper decline of 32-44%.
Reality check: Neither path comes close to what scientists say is needed to avoid the worst climate impacts."
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/12/trump-epa-climate-rollback-emissions-impact
-
"By the numbers: The firm projects that without big EPA rules underpinned by the finding, U.S. emissions in 2035 would be 26-35% below 2005 levels.
If the rules were intact? A steeper decline of 32-44%.
Reality check: Neither path comes close to what scientists say is needed to avoid the worst climate impacts."
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/12/trump-epa-climate-rollback-emissions-impact
"This week’s reckless decisions may violate the 1991 Canada–United States Air Quality Agreement, a treaty that seeks to reduce trans-boundary air pollution.
Beyond that, the two nations announced in December 2023 that they had entered into an agreement “to renew and accelerate their joint efforts to combat the climate crisis and to increase economic benefits from collaboration.”
https://www.brandonsun.com/opinion/2026/02/13/canada-must-fight-u-s-climate-decisions
-
"This week’s reckless decisions may violate the 1991 Canada–United States Air Quality Agreement, a treaty that seeks to reduce trans-boundary air pollution.
Beyond that, the two nations announced in December 2023 that they had entered into an agreement “to renew and accelerate their joint efforts to combat the climate crisis and to increase economic benefits from collaboration.”
https://www.brandonsun.com/opinion/2026/02/13/canada-must-fight-u-s-climate-decisions
"Greenhouse gases do not respect international borders.
The “no-harm” rule of international law is codified in Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration and Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration. It requires nations to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause significant environmental harm to other nations and, secondly, to take all appropriate measures to prevent such damage from occurring."
https://www.brandonsun.com/opinion/2026/02/13/canada-must-fight-u-s-climate-decisions
-
"Greenhouse gases do not respect international borders.
The “no-harm” rule of international law is codified in Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration and Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration. It requires nations to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause significant environmental harm to other nations and, secondly, to take all appropriate measures to prevent such damage from occurring."
https://www.brandonsun.com/opinion/2026/02/13/canada-must-fight-u-s-climate-decisions
"The administration says their new rule will save the US $1.3tn.
But that claim, experts say, ignores the far greater costs Americans will incur due to extreme weather and other impacts of climate change.
One estimate from environmental nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund found the repeal of the endangerment finding could impose up to $4.7tn in additional expenses tied to climate-warming and toxic pollution over the next two decades."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/14/trump-obama-climate-rule-takeaways
-
"The administration says their new rule will save the US $1.3tn.
But that claim, experts say, ignores the far greater costs Americans will incur due to extreme weather and other impacts of climate change.
One estimate from environmental nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund found the repeal of the endangerment finding could impose up to $4.7tn in additional expenses tied to climate-warming and toxic pollution over the next two decades."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/14/trump-obama-climate-rule-takeaways
"But a chart within the analysis indicates that the US will through 2055 incur $1.4tn in additional costs from increased fuel purchases, vehicle repair and maintenance, insurance, traffic congestion and noise. [Plus] reduced energy security.
In total, this means the repeal of the endangerment finding will impose an estimated costs of $1.5tn, overshadowing the projected $1.3tn in savings. And that’s before you take into account the huge social and climate costs."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/15/trump-climate-ruling
-
"But a chart within the analysis indicates that the US will through 2055 incur $1.4tn in additional costs from increased fuel purchases, vehicle repair and maintenance, insurance, traffic congestion and noise. [Plus] reduced energy security.
In total, this means the repeal of the endangerment finding will impose an estimated costs of $1.5tn, overshadowing the projected $1.3tn in savings. And that’s before you take into account the huge social and climate costs."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/15/trump-climate-ruling
"The official policy of the US government [is] that greenhouse gases don’t endanger Americans’ well-being and therefore don’t need federal regulation.
Insurance companies, meanwhile, live in a parallel universe where greenhouse gases are heating the atmosphere and intensifying natural disasters, harming human health, destroying property and raising insurance costs.
The US government’s universe is an increasingly lonely fantasy world. You’re trapped in the real one."
-
T tokeriis@helvede.net shared this topic
A anderslund@expressional.social shared this topic
