“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”

I think Lenin said that, or maybe it was Elon Musk.

The cardinal rule for understanding fast-moving news is to follow events as they happen, and to ignore everything written more than 24 hours later. It’s in the live coverage that you perceive the truth that will later be hidden under a mountain of verbiage.

The ultimate example of that truism was the live reporting on 9/11, when the BBC announced the collapse of building 6 several minutes before the event. Only the BBC can make a 20 storey building fall down simply by announcing that it has already happened.   

But enough conspiracy theorising. The BBC and Guardian are both providing free on-line live coverage of Trump’s initiative to end the Ukraine war. In every line they write your can feel the strain on their collective artificial intelligences when faced with a barrage of insoluble paradoxes.

Trump bad. 

War bad.

Trump ending war bad.

Rewriting history in real time is hard work, but the BBC does its best. From today’s report

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvg1402yyvet

 on Trump’s deal with Zelensky to rob Ukraine of its raw materials:

US aid in the Trump era comes with strings attached. Aid for aid’s sake – whether given for humanitarian or strategic reasons – is a thing of the past. That represents a fundamental reordering of American foreign policy for more than 75 years, from the days of the Marshall Plan to post-Cold War idealism and George W Bush’s “Freedom Agenda” push to promote global democracy.

It takes a certain kind of daring to utter the words “idealism” “freedom” “global democracy” and “George W. Bush” in the same sentence, but the BBC is fearless. The boldness of the attempt may lead one to overlook the key concept of US foreign policy  being promoted, which Trump is supposedly abolishing: 

Aid for aid’s sake – whether given for humanitarian or strategic reasons.

Anyone can say one thing and mean another, but it takes talent to contradict yourself within a single phrase. One week after Trump allegedly condemned millions of recipients of USAID to a lingering death, the BBC announces that what’s been on offer for the past 75 years is in fact “Aid for aid’s sake .. given for strategic reasons.”

But on to the nub of the Deal, which concerns the nature of what Zelensky is promising in exchange for peace, or victory, or a quiet retirement in Florida or Monaco, or possibly none of the above – the famous rare earth elements: 

Dissident voices have been heard suggesting that these trillions of dollars worth of resources don’t actually exist in an exploitable form, for example the way-out alt news site Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-02-26/rare-earths-in-ukraine-that-s-utter-nonsense-video

Another such voice is an expert who has spent his life analysing fake data in the mining industry, an obscure statistician named Steve McIntyre. But who listens to experts nowadays?

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1890591202308718870

Note also the crucial evidence adduced to support the importance of these “critical raw materials” (the quotation marks are the BBC’s, so perhaps they’ve noticed something.) They are necessary for the production of:

.. batteries in electric vehicles .. weapons, wind turbines .. and other products vital in the modern world.

While batteries in electric vehicles are certainly vital to the fortune of Trump’s key right hand man, it is precisely opposition to electric vehicles and wind turbines, and the politicians who promote them, which led in large part to Trump’s election, and which promises a similar political revolution in Europe. As Renault recalls its electric vehicles because of fire danger, and opposition to Net Zero and ruinously expensive electricity pushes fringe parties to the head of the polls in the UK and elsewhere, the long term demand for batteries for electric vehicles and wind turbines seems fragile, to say the least.  

Which leaves weapons as a use for these “critical raw materials.” There, at least, there is agreement. We’ll always need them.

(note: The title of this article is a fake quote.) 

The Washington Post published a report today stating that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has advised the Trump administration to repeal the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which classifies greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. This finding has underpinned federal emissions regulations for over a decade. The Post suggests that such a move, if enacted, would mark a significant shift in U.S. climate policy. The story relies on unnamed sources, leaving its claims unverified but noteworthy given the potential implications.

The Post article indicates that Trump administration officials are evaluating whether to reverse the endangerment finding, a determination first made under the Obama administration and later used by the Biden administration to impose limits on vehicle and power plant emissions. The report cites “three individuals briefed on the matter” who mention Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA chief of staff and contributor to Project 2025, and Jonathan Brightbill, a former Justice Department official, as advisors involved in the effort. On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order directing EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to assess the finding’s “legality and continuing applicability” within 30 days, with recommendations submitted to Russell Vought at the Office of Management and Budget. The EPA has not released these recommendations, and spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou declined to comment beyond confirming compliance with the order.

Because the Washington Post bases its account on three anonymous individuals rather than named officials or documented evidence. The absence of specific documentation or on-the-record statements from Gunasekara, Brightbill, or others named in the story leaves the report’s foundation uncertain, though not necessarily inaccurate.

The 2009 endangerment finding, upheld by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling affirming the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, has long been a target for critics of federal climate policy. During Trump’s first term, skeptics petitioned the EPA to repeal it, but the obstructionist bureaucrats at the agency stalled in opposition to Trump, finally, successfully, rejecting the petition on Trump’s last day in 2021, citing legal constraints. This time around the Trump administration has clearly learned from the past.

The current administration’s early actions, including the executive order, suggest a renewed interest in revisiting this issue. Figures like Tom Pyle of the American Energy Alliance and Myron Ebell of the American Lands Council, quoted by the Post, support the idea, arguing it could ease regulatory burdens and facilitate challenges to Biden-era rules.

Reversing the finding would face hurdles. Environmental attorney Sean Donahue, cited in the Post, contends that the scientific record supporting the endangerment determination—built over decades—would likely withstand legal challenges to a repeal. Previous court decisions have reinforced the EPA’s mandate, and any rollback could trigger litigation from environmental groups, but unlike Trump’s first term, Trump will have a DOJ that supports him in litigation.

If successful, repealing the endangerment finding would undermine the legal basis for many existing climate regulations, potentially affecting emissions standards for vehicles, power plants, and other sectors. Critics of the finding, including many contributors to this site, have long questioned its scientific grounding, pointing to massive uncertainties in climate models and historical data.

Without the finding, the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases could be sharply curtailed, shifting the policy landscape significantly.

The Post’s report, if confirmed, could reshape federal climate efforts. Its reliance on anonymous sources, however, warrants caution. The story’s plausibility is supported by the administration’s prior actions and the involvement of known policy advisors, yet the lack of concrete evidence—such as a leaked document or named official—keeps it in the realm of speculation for now. Observers should watch for further confirmation. Until then, this remains an intriguing but unproven claim.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Press Release from Symphony Environmental:

EU Commission NGO manipulation highlights decade-long corruption in plastic policy, says Symphony Environmental

With NGO financing from the EC coming to light, plastic policy needs greater transparency to remove corruption and confusion from legislation.

Recent reports from the “Brussels Morning” newspaper said that the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf had uncovered findings that are now shaking the entire European Union. They discovered that the European Commission had been financing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) lobbying for the policies of former EU Commissioner Frans Timmermans and influencing politicians to push through his “Green Deal.” It has now come to light that the EU commission gave €1 billion of public funds to green NGOs and lobbyists to promote the policies of the EU Commission.

The Report says, “We demand transparency from green NGOs. The European Commission must not use taxpayers’ money to fund studies from affiliated NGOs that conveniently produce results tailored to the Commission’s agenda. That is simply wrong. Studies must be professional and independent. European funds should never be used to serve a political faction or ideology, nor to manipulate MEPs or the public.”

Commenting on these revelations, Michael Laurier, CEO of Symphony Environmental, said, “Political manipulation of this kind undermines the credibility of NGOs who have been campaigning against plastic.  We have never been able to understand until now how the EU could impose a ban on what they called ‘oxo-degradable plastic’ without any impact assessment or socio-economic analysis and without a dossier from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) showing any justification for any such ban. We have legal advice that the ban does not apply to “oxo-biodegradable” plastic, which is a different technology, but people have been confused into thinking that it does.”

“Political manipulation also explains the behaviour of the EU court when we sought to deal with that confusion.  What other court in the world would dismiss our expert evidence because we paid for it (perhaps they think that Intertek and the other international test-houses are happy to work for nothing) whilst at the same time accepting the evidence of Eunomia for which the Commission had paid.  Further, what other court in the world would accept that legislators must act on the best evidence available and then excuse the Commission’s premature termination of a scientific investigation of biodegradable plastic technology by the European Chemicals Agency.”

“As a result of this political manipulation, thousands of tonnes of plastic packaging escape into the European environment and its coastal waters every month, where it will lie or float around for decades.  It will continue to do so until this legislation is clarified – or unless the EU bans plastic altogether, which would be a very foolish thing to do. Symphony has been trying for more than ten years to explain to the EU that the way to reduce pollution is not to ban plastic, which is the best material for the job, but to improve waste management and make the plastic biodegradable, as a fail-safe mechanism so that it will quickly biodegrade if it does get into the open environment.”

The Brussels newspaper Report continues, “Many of these lobbying contracts were classified, making them inaccessible, and it was only during an audit conducted by the Court of Auditors that some of them came to light. Others were exposed thanks to whistleblowers—insiders within these NGOs who decided to speak out.  Every year, €2.6 billion was spent on questionable studies designed to justify the necessity of the Green Deal.”

“It is not surprising that this scandal is linked to the name of Frans Timmermans, who frequently promised impact assessments but either failed to deliver them or eventually produced studies based on data supplied by NGOs. These reports lacked solid data, thorough analyses, and credible sources.”

Laurier concludes: “One could clearly sense the strong ideological agenda that the architect of the Green Deal was pushing within the Commission—despite repeated objections. His influence was simply too great. He sought to push through his green policies at all costs, with no regard for their impact on the European economy and living standards. Shockingly, one-third of NGOs currently do not disclose who funds them, or who establishes them.”

Brussels Morning cover the story, which they call the EU’s biggest scandal in 20 years. They write:

“A few days ago, the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf uncovered findings that are now shaking the entire European Union. The European Commission has long been financially supporting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) lobbying for the green policies of former EU Commissioner Frans Timmermans. Lobbyists, funded from the EU budget, were tasked with influencing politicians to push through the Green Deal. This is evidenced by secret contracts obtained by the Dutch newspaper.”

https://brusselsmorning.com/the-european-commission-faces-its-biggest-scandal-in-20-years/65937