The Trump administration plans to revoke the EPA's 2009 "endangerment
finding," which classified greenhouse gases (CO?, methane, etc.) as
pollutants under the Clean Air Act—a move that enabled strict climate
regulations for over a decade.
The administration argues
that climate regulations are economically burdensome, stifling
industries while having minimal impact on global temperatures. Officials
claim this deregulation will reduce energy costs and promote domestic
energy production, including coal.
The administration
dismisses CO2 as an existential threat, calling climate change a natural
cycle influenced by solar, oceanic and geological factors—not human
activity. Trump has mocked climate activists, particularly during
extreme cold weather events.
The move is framed as a
rejection of globalist climate policies pushed by the UN and World
Economic Forum, which the administration sees as tools for centralized
control over energy, food and transportation systems. Supporters argue
CO2 is essential for plant growth and warn against "net zero" mandates
as a path to economic destabilization and surveillance.
The
EPA's proposal eliminates automaker emissions tracking and paves the way
for further deregulation. Critics warn of ecological harm, but
supporters hail it as a victory against bureaucratic overreach and a
return to energy independence.
In a sweeping reversal of
Obama-era climate policies, the Trump administration announced plans to
strip greenhouse gases from the list of federally regulated pollutants,
dismantling the legal foundation for nearly two decades of
environmental regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
led by Administrator Lee Zeldin, will formally revoke the 2009
"endangerment finding"—a landmark ruling that classified carbon dioxide
and other emissions as threats to public health.
The
move, hailed by the administration as "the largest act of deregulation
in U.S. history," aligns with President Donald Trump's long-standing
skepticism of climate alarmism and his push for energy independence.
Critics warn of ecological consequences, but supporters argue the policy
shift liberates industries from burdensome red tape and rejects what
they call "dubious science" fueling globalists climate
agenda...<<<Read More>>>...
