By Jo Nova

If CO2 isn’t endangering lives, legally, there’s no reason to outlaw oil and gas

Marc Morano of ClimateDepot calls this the “holy grail” of the climate agenda. Most of the climate policies of the United States depend on “the Endangerment Finding”– so President Trump asked the new EPA head to look closely at it. This is the “finding” in 2009 that CO2 endangers the public, and that in turn means the EPA must regulate this “pollutant”. Thereby becoming the perfect excuse to allow the bureaucrats to regulate cars, trucks, planes, gas stoves and anything from hair dryers to home insulation.

The new EPA head just finished his 30 day consideration and recommends the Whitehouse rewrite the past conclusion entirely.

Ann Carlson of LegalPlanet says undoing the Endangerment Finding …”would mean full-blown warfare against all things climate.”  She describes how the entire bureaucratic edifice crumbles if CO2 is not a pollutant:

If the Administration were to reverse the endangerment finding, greenhouse gases would no longer need to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Presumably, EPA would then simply move to revoke all of Biden’s major climate rules regulating cars, trucks, power plants, and oil and gas operations.   As Joe Goffman, former Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation under President Biden, told Politico, recently, “taking away the 2009 endangerment finding would really make it almost a virtual formality to take down all the greenhouse rules for CO2 and methane,”

This great news, of course, blows some minds

From Bloomberg

“There is a lot of shocking stuff happening now, but to completely deny climate change and any federal obligation to control the pollution that’s driving it would be shocking and irresponsible,” said David Doniger, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Environmental advocates contend it also would be illegal. “Climate pollution is air pollution, and it is fueling a crisis,” said Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign. “There is no scientific basis – none – to claim otherwise.

Ann Carlson of LegalPlanet explains, bless her, that the EPA did all “the Science” and public consultation (after twenty years of indoctrination) to get this endangerment “finding” through in the first places so if Trump doesn’t follow the same process, they’ll get sued. She’s sure Trump would lose “because the science is… overwhelming”. Clearly, she has no idea ten times as many people die of the cold, or that the entire causal “evidence” for the dangers of CO2 depends on models that ignore the solar-electric field, the magnetic field, UV changes and the solar wind, and get nearly everything wrong.

We’re just getting started

Believers are telling themselves all kinds of lies at the moment just to cope with the shock. They’re hoping that individual states will still be able to make climate rules, they’re warning it could take years for the EPA to get through the proper rule-making process. They’re comforting themselves that other legal doors will open if this one closes: even though teenagers might not be able to sue essential corporations for doing their jobs, “it could revive public nuisance laws” against oil producers. Praise the Lord!

Trump should not only set up a scientific group to investigate whether CO2 causes any harm, he should follow the evidence all the way. If the scientists consider the total cost-benefits of CO2, they’d easily show CO2 is an asset that feeds the poor, restores the forests, and improves life on Earth.

Obviously, those companies and countries emitting CO2 are doing the world a favor. Coal, oil and gas plants should get tax deductions for their contributions.

Those products that reduce CO2 emissions are the ones endangering lives…

And the Blob that teaches children witchcraft like  “consensus science” is destroying Western Civilization.