Big companies and non-profit groups have begun purging or rewriting references to climate change on their websites, mirroring similar action by US government departments in response to the policies of Donald Trump.
Financial Times analysis shows that statements on climate change from leading corporations including Walmart and Kraft Heinz have been deleted or rewritten over the past year at the same time as a Republican backlash against green action has intensified and companies have begun rolling back their net zero targets.
…
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, warned companies were at risk of “committing brand self-sabotage by erasing and diluting references to climate on their websites”.
…
Charities also told the FT they were rejigging their websites, with one US non-profit group that operates internationally saying they had scrubbed whole pages about climate change online, partly in a bid to help shore up US grants.
The full article is worth reading, it contains a substantial list of companies and charities which have turned their backs on climate action.
Interestingly some of them apparently started purging online climate content before the November election, possibly in anticipation of a Trump victory.
Obviously if a radical climate activist is elected to the White House all the statements of climate commitment will be dusted off and restored. But in my opinion this shows how little corporations and charities genuinely care about climate change, and the fundamental weakness of the climate movement.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When first using this image, I was noting how naive were politicians (the Brits, for example)l to legislate future CO2 emissions reductions, opening themselves up to lawsuits and legal constraints on policy decisions. Now the same advice applies to the Trump administration targeting the root of the poisonous tree of climate alarmism. First the lay of the land from EPA Director Zeldin, in italics with my bolds:
Trump EPA Kicks Off Formal Reconsideration of Endangerment Finding with Agency Partners
WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency will be kicking off a formal reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other relevant agencies. EPA also intends to reconsider all of its prior regulations and actions that rely on the Endangerment Finding.
Administrator Zeldin: “After 16 years, EPA will formally reconsider the Endangerment Finding.” “The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas. 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.”
White House OMB Director Russ Vought: “EPA’s regulation of the climate affects the entire national economy—jobs, wages, and family budgets. It’s long overdue to look at the impacts on our people of the underlying Obama endangerment finding.”
Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum: “The United States produces energy smarter, cleaner, and safer than anywhere else in the world. To achieve President Trump’s vision for energy dominance, we are prioritizing innovation over regulation to attain an affordable, reliable, clean, and secure energy future for all Americans.”
Energy Secretary Chris Wright: “The 2009 Endangerment finding has had an enormously negative impact on the lives of the American people. For more than 15 years, the U.S. government used the finding to pursue an onslaught of costly regulations – raising prices and reducing reliability and choice on everything from vehicles to electricity and more. It’s past time the United States ensures the basis for issuing environmental regulations follows the science and betters human lives.”
Transportation Secretary Duffy: “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership and the hard work of Administrator Zeldin, we are taking another important step toward ushering in a golden age of transportation. The American people voted for a government that prioritizes affordable, safe travel and lets them choose the vehicles they drive. Today we are delivering on that promise, and 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.”
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Jeff Clark: “Since 2009, I’ve consistently argued that the endangerment finding required a consideration of downstream costs imposed on both mobile sources like cars and stationary sources like factories. Under the enlightened leadership of President Trump and Administrator Zeldin, the time for fresh thought has finally arrived.”
In President Trump’s Day One Executive Order, “Unleashing American Energy,” he gave the EPA Administrator a 30-day deadline to submit recommendations on the legality and continuing applicability of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. After submitting these recommendations, EPA can now announce its intent to reconsider the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
When EPA made the Endangerment Finding in 2009, the agency did not consider any aspect of the regulations that would flow from it. EPA’s view then was that the Finding itself did not impose any costs, and that EPA could not consider future costs when making the Finding. EPA has subsequently relied on the Endangerment Finding as part of its justification for seven vehicle regulations with an aggregate cost of more than one trillion dollars, according to figures in EPA’s own regulatory impact analyses. The Endangerment Finding has also played a significant role in EPA’s justification of regulations of other sources beyond cars and trucks.
Congress tasked EPA under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act with regulating new motor vehicles when the Administrator determines that emissions of an air pollutant endanger public health and welfare. But the Endangerment Finding went about this task in what appears to be a flawed and unorthodox way. Contrary to popular belief, the Endangerment Finding did not directly find that carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. cars endanger public welfare. Instead, the Finding looks at a combination of emissions of six different gases—and cars don’t even omit all six. It then creatively added multiple leaps, arguing that the combined six gases contribute some mysterious amount above zero to climate changeand that climate change creates some mysterious amount of endangerment above zero to public health. These mental leaps were the only way the Obama-Biden Administration could come to its preferred conclusion, even if it did not stick to the letter of the Clean Air Act.
The Endangerment Finding acknowledges and identifies significant uncertainties in the science and assumptions used to justify the decision. In the 16 years since EPA issued the Endangerment Finding, the world has seen major developments in innovative technologies, science, economics, and mitigation. EPA has never before asked for public comment on the implications these developments have had on the Endangerment Finding, but now it will as part of the reconsideration process it intends to undertake. Additionally, major Supreme Court decisions in the intervening years, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, West Virginia v. EPA, Michigan v. EPA, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, have provided new guidance on how the agency should interpret statutes to discern Congressional intent and ensure that its regulations follow the law.
As part of this reconsideration process, EPA will leverage the expertise of the White House Budget Office, including the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other relevant agencies.
It is in the best interest of the American people for EPA to ensure that any finding and regulations are based on the strongest scientific and legal foundation. The reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding and EPA’s regulations that have relied on it furthers this interest. The agency cannot prejudge the outcome of this reconsideration or of any future rulemaking. EPA will follow the Administrative Procedure Act and Clean Air Act, as applicable, in a transparent way for the betterment of the American people and the fulfillment of the rule of law.
This was announced in conjunction with a number of historic actions to advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and Power the Great American Comeback. Combined, these announcements represent the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in the history of the United States. The overhaul of the Endangerment Finding along with other massive rules represents the death of the Green New Scam and drives a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion. While accomplishing EPA’s core mission of protecting the environment, the agency is committed to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to unleash American energy, lower costs for Americans, revitalize the American auto industry, restore the rule of law, and give power back to states to make their own decisions.
Objections from the usual suspects
“This decision ignores science and the law,” David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “Abdicating EPA’s clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.”
Vickie Patton, the Environmental Defense Fund’s general counsel, said any move to undo the finding “would be reckless, unlawful, and ignore EPA’s fundamental responsibility to protect Americans from destructive climate pollution. We will vigorously oppose it.”
“They don’t have a winning hand. Having the power to do this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not what they’re doing makes sense on the merits,” said Joseph Goffman, who ran EPA’s air office during the Biden administration. “They’ve got nothing on the merits.”
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania dismissed the EPA’s action as “just the latest form of Republican climate denial. They can no longer deny climate change is happening, so instead they’re pretending it’s not a threat, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is, perhaps, the greatest threat that we face today.”
If EPA’s endangerment finding is rescinded, it may not have any material impact on the agency’s legal basis for issuing future climate regulations on GHG emissions, since the IRA amended the CAA to grant explicit authority to the agency.Nevertheless, repealing the endangerment finding would likely createchaos and uncertainty for U.S. climate policy.
First, rescinding the endangerment finding would make it much easier for the Trump Administration to repeal the existing EPA GHG emissions regulations because the original legal basis for this authority would no longer exist. Under the Obama and Biden Administrations, EPA has issued several sector-based GHG emissions regulations using the endangerment finding as a legal basis.
Second, repealing the endangerment finding would immediately subject EPA to legal challenges that could last years. Before the dispute could be adjudicated by the courts, there would be considerable confusion and uncertainty over compliance with the existing regulations. This would negatively impact the regulatory environment for businesses, as they need durable and consistent policies to make long-term investment decisions.
From the perspective of policymaking, rescinding EPA’s endangerment finding puts a big question mark on the outlook of U.S. climate policies. Currently, at the federal level, the United States uses a patchwork of policies to mitigate GHG emissions, such as handing out massive clean energy tax subsidies under the IRA and relying on command-and-control EPA regulations. The IRA energy tax provisions will likely be subject to at least partial repeal in an upcoming 2025 reconciliation bill. Even if a future administration seeks to regulate GHG emissions via EPA rulemaking, it would take a long time, and generally such regulations are costly, inflexible, and vulnerable to legal challenges.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that a notice will be published in the Federal Register seeking nominations for the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Nominations will be accepted for 30 days following publication of the Federal Register notice.
“Reconstituting the Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee are critical to ensuring that the agency receives scientific advice consistent with its legal obligations to advance our core mission of protecting human health and the environment,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin. “I look forward to receiving nominations to build an independent group of advisors to aid the agency’s rulemaking.”
In January, EPA announced its decision to reset these federal advisory committees
to reverse the politicization of SAB and CASAC under the Biden-Harris Administration.
The Australian billionaire and outspoken climate advocate Mike Cannon-Brookes has defended buying a private jet and his company’s new sponsorship of the Williams Formula One racing team.
…
Cannon-Brookes sought to explain the reasons why he bought the jet and Atlassian’s F1 sponsorship in an almost-500 word post to LinkedIn, hours after the Australian Financial Review had written about the billionaire’s new jet.
Estimated to be worth US$13bn by Forbes, Cannon-Brookes said he bought a private jet “so I can run a global business from Australia, and still be a constantly present dad” which was a “hard, continual tradeoff I’ve decided to make”.
On the sponsorship of the Williams F1 team, Cannon-Brookes said he appreciated “the double take” on the deal because “cars=fuel”.
…
“It probably comes as no surprise, I have an extremely rigorous carbon regime for all my flying – including using direct air capture and sustainable fuels for the carbon and contrails, to far exceed my flight footprint,” he wrote.
It’s OK Mike, we at WUWT understand, believe me we do.
Of course, this has implications for the rest of us family guys – we love our kids every bit as much as Mike loves his.
Now that a leading green has set the acceptable family man carbon allowance at the level of CO2 emitted by flying multiple times per week in a private jet and sponsoring an Formula 1 racing team, I think most of us with a little personal sacrifice could match that level of climate activism.
I only have one question.
Mike, back in 2019 your company Atlassian offered paid leave to employees who participate in climate protests. Does this offer still apply to employees who attend a green blockade of your private jet? Or do they have to make sure they blockade someone elses private jet?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Earlier in the week, Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. in the Superior Court in Washington DC found in favour of Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn is one of my heroes in the fight for some integrity in historical temperature reconstructions.
One of the main reasons we now have such unaffordable energy in the West is because fraudulent historical temperature reconstructions – most notably Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick reworking of the last 1,000 years of European temperature history – have frightened policy makers into believing we have a climate catastrophe. Of course, many have been keen to be ‘frightened’ because they have found financial and other advantage in the mandated transition to ostensibly ‘clean’ energy.
It is the little people who are now paying for all of this, including through ridiculously unaffordable energy bills.
At the recent Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London there was much lamenting the consequence by so many polite conservatives now with political power, but a complete denial of the cause. Shame.
Back to the case at hand. Earlier in the week, Judge Irving found clear and convincing evidence, that Mann, through his lawyers, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court in the defamation case against Mark Steyn. So, eventually, Steyn may get some of his costs paid, and by Mann.
How is it that Michael Mann ever thought he was going to get away with presenting such erroneous evidence? And why did Mann bring the defamation case against Mark Steyn in the first place?
These are important questions that are not being discussed, perhaps because they show just the extent to which we live in a culture dominated by fraudulent within our institutions especially those concerned with science.
I have been writing now for over a decade about the many ways the Australian Bureau of Meteorology ruin the Australian historical temperature series. Despite valid attempts with my husband John Abbot, including by bringing a case against the Bureau through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, we are getting nowhere. At least not yet.
Gideon, John and I outside the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane in February 2023; the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that was abolished in October 2024.
Mark Steyn has had more success. Despite bad health and near bankruptcy, he has never given up. With his extraordinary work ethic, he is perhaps finally winning through, at least he is starting to show Michael Mann up for what he is, for what much of modern climate science is: fraud. That may be his legacy. For that I will be forever grateful.
Some 13 years ago, the much lauded and absurdly creative climate scientist, Michael E. Mann, did take Mark Steyn to court for defamation. The case dragged on, almost never making it to court until it was finally heard in Washington DC just over a year ago, in January 2024. The jury, mostly ignoring much of the evidence, some of it well presented by Steyn who represented himself, found that while Mann had NOT suffered financially from the claim by Steyn of fraud –- specifically Mark Steyn claims that Michael Mann’s most famous historical temperature reconstruction is an invention with the intention to deceive –- he, Steyn, should nevertheless be punished.
And so, in accordance with the zeitgeist, but against the evidence, Steyn was ordered by the court to pay US$1 in nominal damages, and US$1,000,000 in punitive damages.
Mark Steyn was ordered, in effect, to pay US$1 million for being disagreeable – for offending the majority.
The injustice. I sobbed that day, February 9, 2024, as I penned Part 5 of a series about the court case on my weblog, click here. And I thank Ann McElhinney for taking my call, for letting me lament with her over the phone. And I thank Ann for the brilliant podcast series she has created about all of this with the Phelim McAleer, click here.
A year later, and earlier this month, specifically on March 4, 2025, on appeal, the US$1,000,000 in punitive damages was reduced to US$5,000. You can read more at SteynOnline including the judgement, click here.
Then on March 12, there was another ruling, that Michael Mann’s lawyers had mislead the court. Justice takes time it seems. And I have new hope. Again the judgment can be downloaded from SteynOnline, click here.
In bringing legal action against Steyn all those years ago, Mann claimed to be making a stand for science. In reality, he was seeking to quash any resistance, and in the highest profile way possible. He picked on, not just Steyn who was published by the National Review, but also Rand Simburg who at the time was blogging for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Mann was in search of a fight with those he thought he could further malign, Mark Steyn and Rand Simburg, over the unfashionable demand for some integrity in historical temperature reconstructions.
Mark Steyn and Rand Simburg fought back, and with great persistence, tenacity and courage never mind the real financial and also significant personal costs.
Meanwhile The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review Inc, who Mann was perhaps really hoping to be fighting against, stepped away, hanging Simburg and Steyn out to dry, so to speak – leaving them to defend themself.
Last year the jury found against both men, but more so against Steyn. Simburg was awarded punitive damages of US$1,000 while for Steyn it was orders of magnitude greater at US$1,000,000.
This case is fundamentally, at heart, about the accuracy of historical temperature reconstructions, something I have fought long and hard for, and that I will continue to fight for. In the end it is about integrity in science, that is worth fighting for.
It is the case that individuals and their families, not institutions, continually to prosecute the case against climate corruption as John Abbot and I have not given up despite the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being disbanded just as I thought I was going to be called as an expert witness; for some history that needs updating, click here.
I am no fan of Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller, but he does a good job of explaining how absurd the Mann historical temperature reconstruction is – that Steyn has repeatedly correctly characterised as fraud. You can watch and listen on YouTube, click here.
Indeed, Mann’s main claim to fame is his flattening of most of the last 1,000 years of European temperature history, up until the Industrial Revolution. So, instead of the official historical temperature reconstructions for the last thousand years showing a peak in warming 1,000 years ago corresponding to the period of cathedral building across Europe – as Russian historical temperature reconstructions still do – official temperature series from Western institutions, especially the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now show the last 150 years to be a period of unprecedented warming following 1,000 years of very little change.
The sixty years of cooling to 1975, and the Little Ice Age when the Thames River froze over, is still evident in the Russian reconstructions but has been erased from the American reconstructions, as I explained in Part 6 of my commentary on the saga a year ago, click here.
******************
The feature image is a cartoon I commissioned from Josh, perhaps a decade ago. This is the first time I have published it. I was keeping it for a manuscript that I am adding to. As my daughter reminds me, “The hard part is finishing, but that’s also where the power is.” Thank you to Mark Steyn for staying around to finish what Michael Mann started.
Jude and Jennifer/me with my grandson: every generation will throw-up some of us who understand the importance of resistance.
