From The MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

As discussed in a couple of recent posts here and here, the so-called Endangerment Finding (EF) was an EPA regulatory action early in the Obama Administration (December 2009) that now provides the foundation for all government efforts to restrict and suppress the use of hydrocarbons in our economy. In one of his first day Executive Orders (“Unleashing American Energy”), President Trump directed the incoming EPA Administrator to submit, within 30 days, “recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings.” Lee Zeldin was then confirmed and sworn in as EPA Administrator on January 29; but the 30th day after the EO, February 19, passed without any public news about a recommendation on the EF.

Today there is news. Apparently The Washington Post was the first outlet to break the story; but that piece is behind their paywall, so I won’t link to it. Fortunately, multiple outlets not behind paywall promptly posted slightly rewritten versions of the WaPo story. Here is a version from Politico, and here is a version from the Associated Press as it appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

To no one’s surprise, the news is that Zeldin has recommended reconsideration of the EF. Apparently the recommendation was made a few days ago in a private memorandum. Here is the AP/AJC version:

In a potential landmark action, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency has privately urged the Trump administration to reconsider a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action against climate change. In a report to the White House, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called for a rewrite of the agency’s finding that determined planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

If this was a private memorandum, how did the story turn up in The Washington Post and other outlets? The answer is, of course, anonymous leaks. The AP/AJC article says there were “four people who were briefed on the matter but spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.” No surprise there — I would expect that 90% or more of the holdover staff at EPA are hostile to the new administration and happy to do whatever they can to undermine it. But note this from a little further down in the same story:

Trump, at a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, said Zeldin told him he is moving to eliminate about 65% of the EPA’s workforce. “A lot of people that weren’t doing their job, they were just obstructionist,” Trump said.

Trump’s EPA Administrators should have done that in his first four year term. But it’s never too late.

Perhaps most notable about the news stories is the haughty and dismissive reaction of the usual suspects on the left. For example, Politico gets quotes from David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund:

“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.”

Clearly, the environmental groups and Democrat-led states will do everything they can to oppose the roll-back of the EF; and they have essentially infinite funds to litigate. So will the rescission be a difficult thing to do, and/or likely to fail in court? Much of the discussion in the two linked pieces, and in others I have read, dwells on the heavy lift necessary to undo a regulation that has gone through the “notice and comment” rule-making process. For example, a Bloomberg piece here (behind paywall) presents rescission of the EF as an enormous challenge:

It could take years for the EPA to go through a required rulemaking process to unwind the endangerment finding, and even then, it might not survive inevitable legal challenges.

They’re trying to scare the administration off, but I don’t think they are right, or that it will work. First, the idea that the rule-making process will “take years” is ridiculous. Yes, it is a cumbersome process. But the Obama people took office on January 20, 2009, went through the full rule-making process, and published the EF in final form on December 15, 2009 — less than 11 months later. I don’t know any reason why the Trump people can’t meet the same schedule, or even improve on it by a few months.

Second, the scientific papers to use to support the rescission are all easily at hand. A couple of junior people with access to the internet and Google can easily come up with several hundred papers published since 2009 and supporting the no-danger position. As I laid out in my January 26 post, most important are papers showing no increasing trends in severe weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc.). There are very many of these.

Lacking any convincing evidence of increases in severe weather, the enviros are left with only a claim that gradual warming over the course of the next century will be some kind of big problem. But EPA can respond that the costs and risks of a forced energy transition to an untested system pose far, far greater dangers to human health and welfare: blackouts in the dead of winter when all heat is mandated to be electric; massive fires at huge grid scale battery installations used to back up wind and solar electricity; toxic gases from such fires imperiling large urban populations; leaks and explosions impacting hydrogen infrastructure; electric cars and buses running out of charge on freezing cold days and stranding the occupants; and so on and on. How about the risk of large numbers of people losing access to electricity or to home heat or to automobile transportation because they can’t afford the cost?

The point of all these things is that they are not a question of the “science” of global warming. They are a question of making a judgment call trading off one set of dangers and risks against another. No amount of appeals to the authority of “scientists” preaching global warming alarm can even address the question of the risks from the forced adoption of the unproven new energy technologies.

So get to work, EPA! I want to see the EF gone by Thanksgiving. Then we’ll have something to really be thankful for.

In a decisive move, the U.S. Congress has repealed the Biden administration’s natural gas tax, marking a significant shift in the nation’s energy policy. This action underscores a commitment to bolstering American energy independence and alleviating financial burdens on consumers.

The natural gas tax, introduced under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, aimed to curb methane emissions—a potent greenhouse gas—by imposing financial penalties on oil and gas producers exceeding specific emission thresholds. The fee was structured to start at $900 per metric ton of methane in 2024, escalating to $1,500 by 2026. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the associated regulations in late 2024, setting the stage for implementation.

Utilizing the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which permits Congress to nullify federal regulations within a certain timeframe, lawmakers moved swiftly to dismantle the methane fee. The House of Representatives passed the resolution with a 220-206 vote on February 26, 2025, followed by a 52-47 Senate vote on February 27. The resolution now awaits President Donald Trump’s signature, which is anticipated promptly.

The repeal has garnered praise from industry stakeholders and political figures who argue that the tax would have stifled energy production and increased costs for consumers. Anne Bradbury, CEO of the American Exploration and Production Council, stated,

“While American oil and gas producers are laser-focused on continuing to reduce emissions, it’s critical to undo these punitive implementing rules while we continue to work with Congress to repeal the underlying statute for the tax that risks driving up energy costs.”

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/senate-sends-legislation-block-bidens-natural-gas-tax-president-trump

Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, a leading proponent of the repeal, emphasized the importance of energy affordability and security:

“American households and businesses depend every day on access to affordable and reliable energy. The best way to bring down prices for U.S. consumers is to increase supply.”

https://www.hoeven.senate.gov/news/news-releases/hoeven-pfluger-introduce-cra-resolution-to-block-natural-gas-tax-reduce-energy-costs-and-boost-us-energy-production

Conversely, critics contend that eliminating the methane fee undermines efforts to combat climate change by allowing unchecked emissions of a highly potent greenhouse gas. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island expressed concern that the resolution would “raise energy prices and weaken environmental quality for consumers.”

The repeal of the natural gas tax reflects a broader legislative trend from the Trump administration, favoring the expansion of domestic oil and gas production. Proponents argue that reducing regulatory and financial obstacles will lead to increased energy independence, job creation, and economic growth. This legislative action aligns with other initiatives aimed at promoting fossil fuel industries, such as expanding drilling rights and reducing environmental oversight.

As the resolution awaits presidential approval, its enactment is poised to reshape the landscape of American energy policy, prioritizing economic considerations and energy autonomy over regulatory measures targeting environmental concerns.

By Jo Nova

Wow. Just Wow. Trump gets elected and Reuters realizes renewable energy is unrealistic

In a rush, at least one opinion writer at Reuters is suddenly saying all the things skeptics have been saying for years: all the things Reuters has hidden from the world about renewable energy.

It is hard to believe, but it’s all there… the naked utter failure of solar and wind to reduce CO2, to reduce oil and gas, and to reduce prices. Edward Chancellor calls it a “resounding failure”. He has the devastating figures, and even the graph showing how countries with more renewables have more expensive electricity. He has another graph of the share market failure of renewables compared to the fossil fuel success, and he uses the words “tumbled” and “soared”.  To grind it home,  he explains how we just export our manufacturing to China which uses coal, calling Net Zero an “illusion” where we think we lower our emissions but we actually raise them overseas.

There is carnage among the sacred cows…

By Edward Chancellor, Reuters

LONDON, Feb 27 (Reuters Breakingviews) – The pursuit of net zero carbon emissions has been a resounding failure. Despite trillions of dollars spent on renewable energy, hydrocarbons still account for over 80% of the world’s primary energy and a similar share of recent increases in energy consumption, according to The Energy Institute. Coal, oil and natural gas production are at record highs. Emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise inexorably. The financial markets were already losing confidence in the energy transition before Donald Trump returned to the White House. A more realistic approach to climate policy is urgently needed.

What they don’t say is that all this was unmistakably obvious for a decade or more, that thousands of engineers and scientists have been telling the world this would happen, and that Reuters wouldn’t report them, not even when they had a Nobel prize.

Solar and wind power have grown to a mere 3.5% of primary energy production. The levelised cost of renewable energy – which measures of the net present value of electricity produced over a plant’s lifetime – has declined sharply over the years. But this has not resulted into lower electricity prices. In fact, as the share of the energy mix provided by renewables has risen, electricity prices have tended to increase. That’s because wind and solar power are intermittent. Since storing energy in batteries is uneconomic, traditional sources of power are still needed as backup, which is expensive.

Why now? Because reality is making Reuters look stupid — it’s not the reality of high costs or blackouts, but the reality that Trump won, and set fire to the “transition” fantasy by dumping Paris, dropping subsidies, opening gas fields, and installing a corporate energy CEO as the US Energy Secretary. Chris Wright and JD Vance are dropping truth bombs in speeches that can’t be ignored.  Word is spreading fast, and if Reuters don’t report this, they risk being turned into the same irrelevant wreckage the US mainstream media channels already are. As the US economy ramps up, other countries will have to let go of their green delusions in order to keep up. There’s no point upping the ante in the UN-poker game if the main player has a Royal Flush.

Even the graph! An actual graph!

Source Reuters and Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy 2024

Presumably the owners of Reuters have sold out of their renewable stocks. Readers here read about this trend in October 2023.

Source: Reuters, and S&P | P.Thal Larsen.

So this is arse-covering, forgive the language, but this is also an escape clause for allies and believers

The owners of Reuters (whoever they are) — are presumably part of The Blob, since they have covered up its failures for decades, and gave millions to Hillary. This article is also an escape clause for allies and a warning to jump ship. It’s full of excuses — we were misled by an era of low interest rates; we had good intentions; we didn’t realize China made all our stuff with coal, you know, and Energy transitions take a very long time. What a shock!

The way Edward Chancellor writes, anyone could have got this wrong. Even the oil giants made mistakes, you know, and are now looking to rebuild their fossil fuel business. Never is there any question that say, National Energy Managers ought to have done their homework, or that Energy Ministers should have done due diligence before recklessly trying to transforming electricity grids based on what Al Gore and a teenage girl told them to do:

Not long ago, investors worried that traditional energy companies would be left with “stranded assets” – oil and gas fields abandoned as demand for fossil fuels dried up. Yet earlier this month Shell (SHEL.L), opens new tab announced a near-$1 billion writedown for its investment in a wind project off the New Jersey coast. BP (BP.L), opens new tab is scrapping targets for increasing generation of renewable energy and cutting oil and gas production. As Lees writes, “across the sector, oil majors that shifted their portfolios to green energy are now realising their mistake and are looking to rebuild their fossil fuel business.”

 The world still urgently needs an alternative to fossil fuels.The energy expert Vaclav Smil has likened the costs of the planned energy transition to those incurred by a nation fighting total war for decades on end. The era of zero interest rates created a sense that the supply of capital was infinite and its cost negligible. Rising interest rates dispelled that illusion. The economics of wind and solar power, with their large upfront investment costs and relatively low operating expenses, have been upended. Wood Mackenzie calculates that every 2 percentage point increase in the risk-free rate raises the levelised cost of renewable electricity by around 20%.

I’ve always said there will come a day when everyone says “I was always a skeptic”. This is the start of that normalization. It’s not the end, but it’s the beginning of the end in the energy battle.

But it’s not even the start of the science battle. They’re still “believers” of big-gov bad-science.

The world still urgently needs an alternative to fossil fuels….

The world still urgently needs real journalists and honest media.

Hat tip to Climate Depot