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

[Magical Realist]

Moron. As if ANY policies lessening pollution and carbon emissions could ever be bad for the planet...


"Cities are flooding and forests are burning, but the Trump administration is ignoring both science and the law. By rescinding its own conclusion on the dangers of greenhouse gas pollution, called the “endangerment finding,” the EPA will revoke its authority to control emissions from cars and trucks, the nation’s biggest contributor to climate change. And the EPA is setting the stage to undo restrictions on other climate polluters next, including power plants and oil and gas producers.
The Trump administration is ignoring the scientific consensus, mountains of evidence, and communities across the country that have been devastated by stronger hurricanes, bigger wildfires, and unnatural disasters. We’re already preparing to sue them to stop this unprecedented attack on our planet."

[Syne]

The "endangerment finding" was done during Obama's administration, dumbass.

That 2009 determination is called the endangerment finding, and most people have never heard of it. But it has played an enormous role in environmental regulations affecting cars, power plants and more.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/clima...nding.html

EPA Releases Proposal to Rescind Obama-Era Endangerment Finding, Regulations that Paved the Way for Electric Vehicle Mandates

As usual, you're very confident in your utter ignorance. 9_9

[C C]

[...] the EPA will revoke its authority to control emissions from cars and trucks, the nation’s biggest contributor to climate change. And the EPA is setting the stage to undo restrictions on other climate polluters next, including power plants and oil and gas producers. [...]

Might still be quite a wait, if companies deem it wise to not change much until they see who wins in 2028. Otherwise, they could spend yet more money reversing things back again. Since Biden kept a few of Trump's tariffs on China, it's not a done deal that a Dem administration would restore old regulations. But still feels like expecting ducks to not rush to a nearby pond when released from their pen after two months.

[Magical Realist]

Not only does such a reactionary and baseless policy face the corporate resistance of years of climate change-based innovation and technology, but it also will find huge push-back from the international community in general along with the global markets. As you rightly observe, a mere 2 years of obstinate politicizing denialism will likely have little sway over the solid decades-long status of climate change as globally-accepted and actionable science.

[Syne]

It's actually bringing unchecked bureaucracy back into its proper legal restraints. Obama unilaterally expanded the EPA authority without Congress changing the laws governing its legal authority. But we all know Dems don't give a shit about the actual law.

[confused2]

I'd have thought US manufactured cars could be 'Trumped up' very quickly and people will grab them while they're available. Just remove the exhaust/silencer bits, tune the engine for maximum noise, fit bigger wheels and add furry dice to the windscreen - you'll immediately have a vehicle any redneck Republican will be proud to be seen in.

[Magical Realist]

It's actually bringing unchecked bureaucracy back into its proper legal restraints. Obama unilaterally expanded the EPA authority without Congress changing the laws governing its legal authority. But we all know Dems don't give a shit about the actual law.

It's nothing the EPA wasn't already designed to do:

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protects human health and the environment by developing and enforcing regulations based on scientific evidence. Established in 1970, its primary purpose is to ensure clean air, land, and water, while managing risks from toxic chemicals, cleaning up contaminated sites, and fostering environmental stewardship."

[Syne]

No, "air pollution" in the Clean Air Act, passed by Congress, was never meant to address climate change (greenhouse gasses).

The Clean Air Act (CAA) defines air pollution as the presence of one or more air pollutants in the outdoor atmosphere—such as physical, chemical, or biological matter—in quantities, characteristics, and duration that are injurious to human health, welfare, or property.
- Google AI

Stretching that definition to include greenhouse gasses is beyond the statutory authority of the EPA. But again, not like Dems ever care what the law actually says.



You intellectually honest enough to own up about your ignorance of it being the Trump "administration's climate change conclusion"? @_@
Or just doing your usual chickenshit of pretending it didn't happen?

[Magical Realist]

Air pollution already scientifically includes greenhouse gases and carbon. And all the evidence points to the harmful effects of such on humans and the environment.

"Air pollution includes greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases cause the climate to warm by trapping heat from the Sun in the Earth's atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are a natural part of Earth's atmosphere, but their increasing amounts in our atmosphere since the early 1900s are causing the climate to warm. The increase comes from vehicle exhaust, pollutants released from smokestacks at factories and power plants, emissions from agriculture, and other sources. Scientists predict that Earth will warm more this century than it did in the 20th century.

According to a NASA study, an increase in ozone pollution, or smog, is causing warming in the Arctic regions. Ozone in the troposphere is a greenhouse gas and also a health hazard. Ozone pollution created in the Northern Hemisphere is transported toward the Arctic during winter and spring months, which leads to warming. Ozone pollution has the greatest impact on the region where it originates, which means some areas are warming more than others. The Arctic is currently warming faster than any other region on Earth, partly because of ozone pollution, but also because of positive feedback loops, where warming melts snow and ice, which changes the Earth's surface and leads to more warming. The warming climate is causing drastic changes to Arctic ecosystems.

...The burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation is increasing the amount of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) in our atmosphere. Small amounts of these gases in the atmosphere are safe to breathe but are also dangerous because they are changing Earth’s climate through a process called the greenhouse effect. Land-use changes due to farming and forestry also lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. For example, livestock and their waste release methane, and cutting down trees means less carbon dioxide is removed from the air. The shift from coal to natural gas as an energy source and the increased use of renewable energy is helping to slow carbon dioxide emissions, but overall, greenhouse gas emissions remain high. As long as greenhouse gas emissions remain high, global average temperatures will continue to rise." --- https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/air...ate-change

[Syne]

More intellectual dishonesty or outright ignorance on parade.

"Air pollution" in the 1963 Clean Air Act doesn't use a modern scientific catchall.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the United States' primary federal air quality law, intended to reduce and control air pollution nationwide.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_...ed_States)

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.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_quality_law

I would say, "see the distinction?", but I know you're reading comprehension is not up to the task.