The major climate news this week has been EPA’s decision to propose repealing its “Clean” Power Plan (CPP) regulation promulgated in 2015, primarily on the basis of the very bad law and economics used by the Obama Administration in its promulgation, as explained in some detail in my 2015 book. The one clear winner will be all the lawyers that will find employment in the legal fights practically certain to come over this. One very unfortunate possibility is that EPA may take no action on reconsidering and revoking the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding (EF) until the CPP legal issues are resolved by the courts. If so, it appears likely that the delay would be considerable since the CPP repeal issues are likely to go to the Supreme Court. This would probably delay any EPA enforcement of the CPP, which is a goal to be applauded. But it may also use up valuable time and energy needed for revocation of the EF prior to the end of the Trump Administration. Revocation of the EF would effectively revoke the CPP.
As long as the 2009 EF exists, the risk of catastrophic damage to the economy from implementation of the EF by future extreme “environmentalist” administrations will remain very real. They might well use the EF to attempt a disastrous backdoor takeover of the US economy by EPA in the name of climate alarmism, which may have been Obama’s intent.
What is Most Needed is Revocation of the EF, but This Can Be Done Simultaneously with Repeal of the CPP
There is no legal reason, of course, that EPA cannot work to revoke both the EF and the CPP simultaneously. It may even be the safest approach in case one or the other fails their court reviews. So this would be my recommended approach as long as they are pursued simultaneously and not sequentially with the CPP revocation coming first. I am delighted that the EPA has finally recognized its legal and economic errors in promulgating the CPP, but it is the EF, not the CPP, that has the potential for doing the most damage under future administrations.
My guess is that EPA took this action to propose repealing the CPP because it wants to repeal the CPP but does not wish to raise the fundamental scientific issues posed by the EF–particularly whether CO2 has a significant effect on global temperatures. EPA may be scared that such a debate would result in a defeat for the Trump Administration or that any attempt to raise the fundamental scientific issues would be used by opponents to label the Trump Administration “anti-environmental” and thus “dirty” in environmentalist speak. Thus ending US involvement in the Paris accord was portrayed by Trump as a victory for a fair deal for the US, not anti-alarmism. Similarly, revoking the CPP was portrayed as a victory for constitutional actions on the basis of the Clean Air Act and accurate benefit-cost analysis, not anti-alarmism. This was clearly not accidental.
If so, the Trump Administration either does not understand the profound significance of the Second Edition of Wallace, Christy, and d’Aleo (2017), does not believe it, or does not believe it can carry the day legally even though it is all new science, a legal requirement for revocation. The great risk is that although the current approach to climate taken by the Trump EPA may slow the alarmist agenda as long as it remains in office, no real changes will be made to the EF, and future administrations may simply resume and even the Obama Administration’s alarmist agenda at the expense of the future of US economic well being. This is far from what could and should be achieved by a more activist approach in which reconsideration and revocation of the EF is the major EPA climate priority.
We have learned things about the administration. Schultz, Baker, Ivanka, Jared, Cohn, and the Mooch are not in charge of climate policy. The Boss is in charge and in concert with Scott Pruitt. Boss wants energy dominance, not a tax on carbon.
Is Boss scared to repeal Obama endangerment science? Doubtful. Boss does not scare easy (eg, North Korea, NFL, Iran, CNN, ESPN, Hollywood celebrities).
It would render public service to document for posterity the scientific failings of climate change. Let the losing Fake news media then defend the indefensible.
The Endangerment Finding can be repealed in future yet not replaced. This will generate more headlines about wiping out Obama’s ephemeral legacy.
Trump has finally gotten around to stopping the non appropriated illegal subsidies to insurance companies. He could have done this months ago, but instead waited patiently until the timing was good.
The timing for Repealing EF seems similarly flexible. He can do this whenever he wants and In due course the jig should be up. Boss can then win again, while Obama, the Greens, Globalists, Hollywood dunces, celebrity athletes, and the mainstream media take it on the chin, yet again. What’s not to like about this theatre?
The climate follies have some resemblance to the long unreported transgressions of Harvey Weinstein. Lots of people are unaware of or excuse malfeasance because encouraged to so by democratic politicians and their media lapdogs.
Weinstein has been brought down by a few women brave enough to bear witness.
Revocating the climate endangerment finding will similarly require testimony of brave people such as Doc Carlin against the climate change cargo cult. Brave and persuasively reasonable individuals do matter!
After the EF is revoked, the dam of fakery will break and a herd of scientists may become happy to admit long harbored doubts about the extravagant claims of alarmists.
The most compelling reason to revoke EF is to uphold reason itself and to reject the Madness of crowds.
If Doc Carlin and a few others can lead toward EF revocation, others can follow them and support sound scientific practices.
The review of the endangerment finding should be initiated on the inappropriate process used to get it passed. There were multiple lapses in the analysis of the science that left it short of the congressional and inter departmental requirements. These were clearly pointed out by your submission during the endangerment finding review prior to it’s acceptance and were ignored. Trump’s position so far has been “no more breaking laws or rules to make new ones”. Thus I think the EF is fair game for his administration’s drive to repeal burdensome rules that were not legally put in place. That would open the door for, or rather, require redoing the science which would end it as there is no evidence of endangerment from fossil fuel emissions of CO2.