Trump rescinds his own administration's climate change conclusion..

[Magical Realist]

Air quality laws govern the emission of air pollutants into the atmosphere. A specialized subset of air quality laws regulate the quality of air inside buildings. Air quality laws are often designed specifically to protect human health by limiting or eliminating airborne pollutant concentrations. Other initiatives are designed to address broader ecological problems, such as limitations on chemicals that affect the ozone layer, and emissions trading programs to address acid rain or climate change.

Sounds like it covers greenhouse gases as well, as those are de facto "air pollutants into the atmosphere." Also gases that effect the ozone layer are also greenhouse pollutants. So even going back to 1963 doesn't loophole out carbon emissions as somehow ok and non-pollutants.

Oh, and then there's this:

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 (Massachusetts v. EPA) that greenhouse gases (GHGs) fit within the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutants. Following a 2009 "endangerment finding," the EPA regulates six key GHGs (\(CO_{2}\), \(CH_{4}\), \(N_{2}O\), HFCs, PFCs, \(SF_{6}\)) from motor vehicles and large stationary sources like power plants. 

Key Aspects of Greenhouse Gas Regulation under the Clean Air Act: Legal Basis: The EPA is authorized to regulate GHGs because they "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare".

Key Pollutants: The EPA defines the six "well-mixed" greenhouse gases as carbon dioxide (\(CO_{2}\)), methane (\(CH_{4}\)), nitrous oxide (\(N_{2}O\)), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (\(SF_{6}\)).

Mobile Sources: The EPA sets emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines.Stationary Sources: Large industrial sources are covered under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit Programs.Tailoring Rule: The EPA issued the "Tailoring Rule" in 2010 to focus permitting requirements on the largest GHG emitters, based on carbon dioxide equivalent (\(CO_{2}e\)) emissions.

Recent Developments: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 amended the Clean Air Act to further address greenhouse gases, including new provisions for monitoring methane emissions and supporting clean energy. "

[Syne]

Apparently you didn't read the "Other initiatives," which literally means other than "air quality laws."

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) did not immediately force the EPA to regulate, but it ruled that greenhouse gases (GHGs) fit the Clean Air Act's definition of "air pollutant". The Court held the EPA must regulate if it makes an "endangerment finding" that GHGs threaten public health. The EPA was forced to re-evaluate, ultimately leading to regulation.
- Google AI

IOW, since the regulating requirement was based on the EPA's own "endangerment finding," rejecting that finding automatically removes the requirement to regulate.

"authorized to regulate" does not mean "required to regulate." Nor does "monitoring methane emissions and supporting clean energy" require onerous regulation.

So, as usual, you're ignorance of the actual laws is your undoing. But we all know you are just ignorantly parroting leftist sources. 9_9

[Magical Realist]

"authorized to regulate" does not mean "required to regulate." Nor does "monitoring methane emissions and supporting clean energy" require onerous regulation.

LOL Now you're descending into stupidity and word parsing again. GHGs clearly as of 2007 fall under the Clean Air Act's definition of pollutants, and that's why the EPA has the authority to regulate them. Period. And if you happen to be a corporation pumping these gases into the atmosphere, prepare to be regulated and fined. At least in two years when manbaby is history. It's the whole purpose of the EPA and always has been. "ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION"...got it?

[Syne]

Yes, the law is all about the finer points of parsing words for legal clarity. If you actually knew anything about the law, you'd know this.
Again, for the illiterate, authority does not mean required. Obama exercised this exact kind of prosecutorial discretion:

The Obama administration exercised prosecutorial discretion to focus immigration enforcement on threats to national security and public safety rather than all undocumented immigrants. Key initiatives included the 2010 "Morton memo" prioritizing deportations and the 2012 DACA program, which provided temporary relief to eligible young people.
- Google AI

DHS has the authority to deport ALL illegal aliens, but the executive has the discretion not to.

But please, keep digging your moron's pit.

[Magical Realist]

DHS has the authority to deport ALL illegal aliens, but the executive has the discretion not to.

Has nothing to do with the EPA having the authority to regulate the emission of GHGs. But you knew that. AS if you weren't just totally refuted about GHGs not being pollutants. Quit humiliating yourself. The argument is over with and you've proven once again that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Syne]

Too bad you don't understand the simplest laws... how authority doesn't mean a requirement to prosecute... yes, it's the same, even for different executive departments/agencies.

Yes, the EPA possesses broad prosecutorial discretion to determine which environmental violations to pursue, allowing it to forgo formal prosecution for certain violations in favor of warnings, administrative actions, or no action. This discretion is used to prioritize enforcement resources for the most serious violations.
- Google AI

9_9

And too bad you can't comprehend the legal method by which GHGs were deemed air pollutants... which legally relies on the EPA's own "endangerment finding," which the EPA has now rescinded.

Seems the more ignorant you are on a subject the more confident you get... so eager to proclaim "the argument over." Classic Dunning-Kruger.
That moron's pit is getting so deep.

[confused2]

Is it possible the new science emerging is the result of giving people the choice between agreeing with Trump or being dart frogged fired?

[Magical Realist]

Yes, the EPA possesses broad prosecutorial discretion to determine which environmental violations to pursue, allowing it to forgo formal prosecution for certain violations in favor of warnings, administrative actions, or no action. This discretion is used to prioritize enforcement resources for the most serious violations.

- Google AI

LOL Confirming everything I just posted about the EPA having full authority to regulate GHGs. You're done shitbag. You lost the argument. Slither back under your rock.

[Syne]

Yes, the EPA possesses broad prosecutorial discretion to determine which environmental violations to pursue, allowing it to forgo formal prosecution for certain violations in favor of warnings, administrative actions, or no action. This discretion is used to prioritize enforcement resources for the most serious violations.

- Google AI

LOL Confirming everything I just posted about the EPA having full authority to regulate GHGs. You're done shitbag. You lost the argument. Slither back under your rock.

Ah, if only you could read.

"authorized to regulate" does not mean "required to regulate."

The over-confidence of Dunning-Kruger.

9_9


Remember, you're the one who made this ignorant claim: "Trump rescinds his own administration's climate change conclusion"
And without the intellectual honest to admit when you've been proven wrong.