America's trillion dollar deregulation could be a dagger in the heart of net zero
This is massive. The endangerment finding underpins regulations on cars and the power sector. If it were overturned, Donald Trump could reverse costly environmental regulations put in place without explicit Congressional approval over the past decade and a half, reducing the costs of electricity and transportation.
The history of the endangerment finding dates from 2007, during the presidency of George W Bush. The Supreme Court interpreted the Clean Air Act to give the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) if the agency decided that these gases from particular sources caused pollution and endangered the public.
Fast forward to 2009, when Barack Obama's EPA concluded that six greenhouse gases endangered public health, allowing the agency to regulate emissions of these gases under the Clean Air Act. This 'endangerment finding' triggered an onslaught of EPA climate regulations that spread to Europe and sparked the international net zero movement. This raised manufacturing costs in the West and encouraged offshoring to Asia, without necessarily reducing global emissions.
The endangerment finding used data from the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the intervening 18 years, more data have become available, and the EPA is seeking to reconsider whether greenhouse gases are having the consequences predicted in 2009. The IPCC has written a Sixth Assessment Report, published in 2022, with updated conclusions.
In addition, new Supreme Court decisions have limited the discretion granted to cabinet agencies. Executive branch agencies must hew to the letter of the law, rather than being free to interpret laws as they see fit. Anything else would be to usurp the authority of Congress, which has never explicitly authorised the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions.
If the EPA finds that greenhouse gases are not pollutants, some regulations in America would be eliminated, with potential savings of trillions of dollars. The average new car costs almost $50,000, up from $23,000 in 2009, partly due to environmental regulations.
Administrator Zeldin said: 'We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.'
The administration is presenting a united front on reconsidering the endangerment finding. The secretaries of the Departments of Energy, Transportation, and Interior, and the directors of the powerful Office of Management and Budget and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the White House, all issued supportive statements.
Transportation secretary Duffy declared: 'This will allow the DOT to accelerate its work on new vehicle fuel economy standards that will lower car prices and no longer force Americans to purchase electric vehicles they don't want.'
Some of the regulations buttressed by the endangerment finding include Obama's Clean Power Plan, which would have forced power plants out of business and was overturned by the Supreme Court in West Virginia vs. EPA; auto emissions regulations that have gradually ratcheted up and could have required around 70 per cent of new cars sold in 2032 to be battery-powered or plug-in electric; and methane controls on farms. Yet predictions that the EPA considered accurate in 2009 have since been updated.
The endangerment finding has been used as a political tool to advance control over the US economy, giving regulators the power to determine which industries could be eliminated and which could flourish. It enables subsidies for particular industries and redistribution of resources. Such regulations have become entrenched worldwide, with the consequence that net zero policies are deindustrialising Europe and preventing countries in Latin America and Africa from accessing their fossil fuel resources.
The US environmental regulatory system is premised on a 2007 analysis of climate science from the start of Obama's term. But as Obama's former undersecretary for research at the Department of Energy, Steve Koonin, wrote in his book Unsettled, the science should not prematurely be declared settled.
Above all, regulators should not be given the power to fundamentally reshape American life without democratic approval. The EPA should be congratulated. Manhattan, cows, and farmers can breathe easier again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
11 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump says US and Pakistan have concluded a trade deal
WASHINGTON, July 30 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday his administration struck a deal with Pakistan in which Washington will work with Islamabad in developing the South Asian nation's oil reserves. "We have just concluded a Deal with the Country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive Oil Reserves," Trump wrote on social media. "We are in the process of choosing the Oil Company that will lead this Partnership." Trump's social media post did not provide further details on the deal between the U.S. and Pakistan. The Pakistani embassy in Washington had no immediate comment. Last week, Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the United States and Pakistan were "very close" to a trade deal that could come within days, after he met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday. Under Trump, Washington has attempted to renegotiate trade agreements with many countries that he threatened with tariffs over what he calls unfair trade relations. Many economists dispute Trump's characterization. The U.S. State Department and Pakistan's foreign ministry, in separate statements after Rubio's meeting with Dar, said last week the two top diplomats stressed in their discussion the importance of expanding trade and ties in critical minerals and mining. "Our teams have been here in Washington discussing, having virtual meetings and a committee has been tasked by the prime minister to fine tune now," Dar said last week about U.S.-Pakistan talks.
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump backs Israel and rebukes Starmer over Palestinian state recognition
Donald Trump has doubled down on his backing for Israel after having appeared to give a green light to the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, to recognize a Palestinian state. Amid signs of mounting opposition among his Maga base to Israel's military operation in Gaza, Trump criticized Starmer's plan to grant recognition as 'rewarding Hamas' even after having not taken issue with it when the pair met in Scotland this week. Talking to journalists on board Air Force One on his return to Washington, Trump said the US was 'not in that camp', referring to Starmer's pledge, which followed a similar declaration by Emmanuel Macron, the French president, days earlier that France would formally recognize Palestinian statehood. 'We never did discuss it,' Trump said, in reference to Starmer's announcement. He added: 'You're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded.' His comments were in line with the US state department, whose spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, called the recognition decision 'a slap in the face' to victims of Hamas's deadly 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, which triggered the current war. But they contrasted with his restrained stance when he and Starmer met at Turnberry in Scotland on Monday, after the UK premier said Britain would give recognition by September unless Israel met certain conditions, including allowing for a ceasefire in Gaza and allowing UN food aid to enter the territory to feed its population. 'I'm not going to take a position, I don't mind him taking a position,' Trump told reporters when asked if he objected to Starmer's move. The US president's response to Starmer seemed markedly softer than his riposte after Macron's statehood announcement last week, which angered Israel and its supporters. 'What he says doesn't matter,' Trump told reporters at the White House. 'He's a very good guy. I like him, but that statement doesn't carry weight.' The initial softer public posture toward Starmer came as Trump publicly contradicted Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, over conditions in Gaza, which numerous international aid agencies have described as famine. Netanyahu had said that, in contrast to the aid group assessments and searing images of hungry children, no one was starving in Gaza. Asked if he agreed, Trump said: 'Based on television, I would say 'not particularly', because those children look pretty hungry to me. There's real starvation, you can't fake that.' Some of Trump's most prominent supporters have become increasingly vocal in their criticism of Israel's conduct, amid polling evidence that Americans generally are losing sympathy for a country that has traditionally been viewed as one of the US's closest allies. Steve Bannon, Trump's former adviser and still one of his leading cheerleaders with his War Room podcast, told Politico that the president's condemnation of the food situation in Gaza would hasten Israel's loss of support among his base. 'It seems that for the under-30-year-old Maga base, Israel has almost no support, and Netanyahu's attempt to save himself politically by dragging America in deeper to another Middle East war has turned off a large swath of older Maga diehards,' Bannon said. 'Now President Trump's public repudiation of one of the central tenets of [Netanyahu's] Gaza strategy – 'starving' Palestinians – will only hasten a collapse of support.' Another Trump supporter, the far-right Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, became the latest – and perhaps most surprising – public figure to label Israel's actions in Gaza 'genocide'. 'It's the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,' she posted on X. The comments came as a new Gallup poll showed support among Americans for Israel's actions in Gaza down to 32%, the lowest since the organization began asking the question in November 2023 – a month after the murderous Hamas raid that killed 1,200 mostly Israeli civilians and led to another 250 to be taken hostage. Israel's military response has led to around 60,000 Palestinians being killed, according to the Gaza health ministry. While Gallup's poll showed support for Israel's offensive still high, at 71%, among Republicans, Thom Tillis, a GOP senator for North Carolina who plans to step down at the next election, said Gaza could be a political problem for Trump, the Hill reported. 'I think that the American people at the end of the day are a kind people. They don't like seeing suffering, nor do I think the president does,' Tillis said. 'If you see starvation, you try to fix it.' Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, told Fox News that Trump's backing for Netanyahu remained unshaken. 'Let me assure you that there is no break between the prime minister of Israel and the president,' he told Fox News. 'Their relationship, I think, [is] stronger than it's ever been, and I think the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is as strong as it's ever been.'
The Sun
41 minutes ago
- The Sun
Trump was absolutely right to trash UK's energy policy – here's how your bills will FALL if Miliband listens
I CAN only imagine that Ed Miliband has been locked in a cupboard for the past four days, lest he spoil Sir Keir Starmer's somewhat forced friendship with Donald Trump. How else to explain his remarkable silence in the face of the US President trashing Britain's energy policy on his golfing trip to Turnberry? 4 4 Trump made several statements which would normally be a red rag to Miliband. He called wind energy a 'con job' and complained that turbines are spoiling the view from his golf course. The following day he doubled down by attacking the Government's policy of denying licences for new gas and oil extraction. Reversing the policy, he asserted on his Truth Social account, would mean 'a vast fortune to be made for the UK' and would lower bills for UK energy consumers. But where was Ed to tell us that wind and solar energy is going to help save us £300 a year on our bills? Low wind speeds Nor did Starmer enter the fray. He sat next to Trump expressionless as the President tore into UK policy on Net Zero and other policies, too. It is too much to hope Starmer and Miliband might have come round to thinking Trump may actually have a point? Trump might not always be the best-informed person on UK politics but on this he is absolutely right. The Scottish government has compromised one of its greatest assets — its landscape — by embracing wind power so enthusiastically, onshore and offshore. But it is simply not providing us with affordable, reliable energy. Subsidised investment in wind turbines has run well ahead of what the national grid can cope with. Last year, UK energy consumers were forced to cough up £1.5BILLION in 'constraint payments' to compensate wind farm owners when they have to turn off their turbines when they are generating too much power to be fed into the grid. At other times — often in winter when the demand for power is greatest — the output from wind turbines falls to less than one per cent of UK energy demand. Three years ago, Miliband and others started trying to tell us that wind energy was 'nine times cheaper than electricity generated by gas'. It wasn't true then. The comparison was arrived at by comparing the long-term, guaranteed prices offered to wind farms with the rates which have to be paid to the owners of gas plants to turn them on for a few hours to fill in gaps when the wind isn't blowing. 4 4 But it is even less true now. For years, the price of wind energy seemed to fall and fall, but that was sharply reversed as soon as interest rates began to rise and the cost of raw materials shot up. Miliband is so desperate to get his turbines built that in the latest round of wind power auctions he has offered investors a guaranteed price of £113 per megawatt-hour of electricity they generate. That is half as much again as we are currently paying for electricity generated by gas. The UK's energy policy ignores another problem. As confirmed in the latest State of the Climate Policy published by the Met Office and Royal Meteorological Society earlier this month, Britain is steadily becoming less windy — a climatic trend which we tend to hear little about. Yesterday, investment trust Greencoat UK Wind warned that its turbines generated 14 per cent less power than it had predicted in the past six months thanks to low wind speeds. If Britain's Net Zero policy really is saving us money, then how come we have the highest electricity prices in the world, according to the International Energy Agency? In 2023, UK consumers paid an average of 36.4 pence for their electricity and 10.2 pence for their gas. US consumers paid the equivalent of 12.9 pence and four pence respectively. And, no, it is not because we are over-reliant on gas. Last year, we generated 29.2 per cent of our electricity from gas and 30 per cent from wind. In the US the corresponding figures were 42.5 per cent and 10.3 per cent. Trump might be exaggerating a little when he says there are 'vast fortunes' to be made in the North Sea. The industry has been in decline for the past two decades as fields are worked out. Driving up bills Nevertheless, the trade body Offshore Energies UK still estimates there are 7.5BILLION barrels-worth to be recovered off Britain's coast — about a fifth as much as has been extracted since the 1960s. Moreover, there are enough shale gas reserves beneath Britain to power the country, at the current rate of consumption, for 47 years, according to one estimate. Banning fracking, and refusing licences for new production, is certainly making us more reliant on imports — and on the 'fossil fuel dictators' Miliband keeps talking about. It is driving up bills, too. It costs money to transport oil and gas long distances, especially the latter in the form of liquefied natural gas, on which we have come to rely more and more since the Ukraine invasion. Sometimes it takes an outsider to tell you where you are going wrong. Enthusiasts for Net Zero policies will damn Trump for his remarks but, sorry, he was right to say what he did — even if he broke diplomatic conventions to do so.
