Trump Declares in EO that CO2 Is Not Pollution..

[Tiny]

Look at this chart guys and tell me again that China is doing a better job than the USA at reducing CO2 emissions,

https://www.climate.gov/media/15559

China's run by engineers, the USA by lawyers. No offense pxmcc, you're closer to an engineer in your current line of work.

I don't know much about Chinese renewable companies. But with respect to textiles and electronics, a great advantage is that the suppliers and all the manufacturers group together in some small area. You have synergies, like you do in Detroit. Permitting is easy.

Try doing that in many parts of the USA in 2026, for an extremely dirty industry like solar components. Who wants a lithium or nickel processing plant in his backyard, let alone rare earth processing? Even polysilicon manufacturing would be off limits in many places in the USA. Regulatory friction in general is much lower in China. It is good though that the EPA and other agencies regulate these businesses so they don't mess up our water and our air with what are REAL pollutants (unlike CO2). (Bold text provided for biomed in the hope of avoiding points.)

Our costs to build plants are much higher than China's. Fuel and power costs may be lower in China, which gets 60% of its energy from coal. Chinese companies are willing to accept much lower returns on capital than USA companies. And, like the textile industry, China has built up a trained workforce and infrastructure for solar components that we'll never be able to beat.

ChatGPT tells me the unsubsidized cost of solar panels made in the USA run $0.30 to $0.40 per watt. With the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies they run $0.20 to $0.30 per watt. The cost in China? $0.07 to $0.10 per watt.

Why would we want to compete with China? Why not just buy the solar panels from the Chinese? So you say, the Chinese manufacturers get hefty subsidies too, and are willing to accept low margins and have access to cheap capital. I say, so what? Take the cheap stuff and be happy for it. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

American companies decide whether to invest based on returns on capital. This results in greater productivity and prosperity in the USA. The United States federal government is a poor judge of how to allocate capital in the private sector. Many governments are. That's why communism and socialism haven't worked out so well.

Yes, we need to offer incentives to help industries important to our security to manufacture in the USA. Electric grid components would be a good example. Certain high end chips and rare earth magnets would be better, but mostly unrelated to electricity generation.

But the USA is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, and natural gas power plants are cheap to build. As a result of Trump's sky high tariffs Chinese solar production is already moving to other countries like Vietnam. Which unfortunately is burdened by even higher tariffs. Anyway, with natural gas and tariff reduction out there, you're not going to see some kind of catastrophic result if China cuts off exports of solar panels to the USA. It's not like oil and gas. I disagree pxmcc, the current Iranian situation is a reason NOT to eliminate or kneecap our domestic oil industry.

And true, the Trump administration shouldn't have sky high tariffs on solar components. I believe they should go to "0". Trump apparently is of a similar mind to some esteemed board members, who believe we should develop a solar components business here, even if the products will cost 3X or 4X more than if they were imported from some place else.

[pxmcc]

^^well argued Tiny..

[txdot-guy]

The obama era “endangerment finding” is the legal framework that allowed the government to set limits on the release of certain greenhouse gases.

Maybe someone in the oil and gas industry can explain how that frameworks purpose is, to quote Tiny, “to eliminate or kneecap our domestic oil industry.”

I fail to see how this framework had a deleterious effect on the oil sector.

It seems to me that this has less to do with the definition of CO2 as a pollutant and more to do with the ideology of deregulation.

[lustylad]

Tiny just alluded to the fact that CO2 isn't a "real pollutant". If it was, it would have been included in the list of 6 "criteria pollutants" for which the EPA was authorized to set emission limits and air quality standards under the 1970 Clean Air Act.

That Act also listed 188 specific "hazardous air pollutants" the EPA was empowered to regulate.

The EPA lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gases until 2007, when the US Supreme Court ruled in a narrow 5-4 decision (Massachusetts v. EPA) that they may qualify as air pollutants, even though they were not listed as such in the original Clean Air Act.

The Obama "endangerment finding" was crafted to greatly expand the EPA's regulatory authority pursuant to the above decision. I personally regard it as executive overreach. I'm in favor of clean air just like the next person, but I find the public-health arguments and economic estimates used to justify many of the regulations against fossil fuels to be flaky, tenuous and inflated by agenda-driven bureaucrats rather than based on hard, precise science.

IMO the early EPA did a good job of curtailing and mitigating real pollutants. This was the easy, straightforward task for which it was created. This was the low-hanging fruit. The 6 criteria pollutants were: ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. The cost v. benefit calculus is much more clear & compelling for those real pollutants.

[txdot-guy]

^^^^^^^ Now this is a persuasive argument as it’s a legislative one. If the original legislation passed doesn’t support the interpretation that includes CO2 as a pollutant that’s regulated under the EPA then there really is no other argument to make.

It sounds like Congress needs to act to fix this problem.

[pxmcc]

yup, great post Lustylad. umm, okay, lemme see what i got here for counterpoint..

ok, for what it's worth, here goes. geronimo, he says, leaping into the abyss. hopefully, there's some water down there or this is gonna hurt..

A compelling case that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should regulate carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in response to global warming begins with the agency’s existing statutory authority and judicial interpretation of that authority. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases, including CO₂, fall within the definition of “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. The Court further determined that once the EPA finds that such emissions “endanger public health or welfare,” it has a duty to regulate them. The EPA’s subsequent endangerment finding concluded that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and pose risks to both human health and environmental stability. This legal framework transforms the issue from one of discretionary policymaking into one of statutory obligation: if CO₂ emissions are harmful within the meaning of the Act, regulatory action is not merely permissible but required.

The scientific basis for this regulatory responsibility is robust and widely accepted. Research synthesized by organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change demonstrates that CO₂ is the primary long-lived greenhouse gas driving anthropogenic climate change. By trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, elevated CO₂ concentrations contribute to rising global temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, and increased frequency of extreme weather events. These changes are not abstract or distant; they manifest in more intense heatwaves, stronger hurricanes, prolonged droughts, and rising sea levels. The accumulation of empirical evidence across multiple disciplines—climatology, oceanography, and atmospheric science—supports the conclusion that CO₂ emissions materially contribute to conditions that threaten ecological systems and human societies alike. In this context, regulatory intervention aligns directly with the EPA’s core mission to mitigate environmental harms grounded in scientific evidence.

Beyond environmental impacts, the public health implications of unchecked CO₂ emissions further strengthen the case for regulation. Climate change exacerbates heat-related illnesses and mortality, particularly among vulnerable populations such as the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. It also influences the distribution of vector-borne diseases, as warming temperatures expand the geographic range of disease-carrying organisms like mosquitoes. Additionally, higher temperatures can worsen air quality by increasing ground-level ozone formation, compounding respiratory risks. Under the Clean Air Act, the concept of “welfare” explicitly includes climate, weather, and ecosystem integrity, thereby linking environmental degradation to human well-being. Regulating CO₂ emissions, therefore, is not only an environmental imperative but also a direct public health intervention consistent with the EPA’s statutory purpose.

From an economic perspective, CO₂ emissions represent a classic example of a negative externality, where the full social costs of an activity are not borne by those who produce it. Firms and individuals emitting greenhouse gases do not directly pay for the downstream consequences, such as disaster recovery costs, infrastructure damage, or health care burdens associated with climate impacts. This misalignment leads to an overproduction of emissions relative to what would be socially optimal. Regulatory action by the EPA can correct this market failure by internalizing these external costs, whether through emissions standards, performance regulations, or incentives for cleaner technologies. Historically, environmental regulation in the United States has demonstrated that well-designed rules can reduce harmful emissions while fostering innovation and long-term economic resilience. In this sense, regulating CO₂ is not antithetical to economic growth but rather a mechanism for aligning market behavior with broader societal interests.

The interstate and global nature of climate change further justifies federal regulatory action. CO₂ emissions do not respect political boundaries; emissions produced in one state contribute to atmospheric concentrations that affect all others. This creates a collective action problem that cannot be effectively addressed through fragmented state-level policies alone. A centralized regulatory approach through the EPA ensures uniform standards, reduces regulatory uncertainty for industry, and facilitates coordination with international efforts to mitigate climate change. Without federal leadership, inconsistent policies could undermine both environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency.

Finally, regulating CO₂ emissions can be understood as a form of prudent risk management. Climate change presents the possibility of large-scale, potentially irreversible harms, including ecosystem collapse, severe economic disruption, and widespread human displacement. Even in the presence of some scientific uncertainty regarding the precise magnitude or timing of these impacts, the scale of the risk justifies precautionary action. Delaying regulation increases both the difficulty and the cost of mitigation, as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere over time. By acting within its established authority, the EPA can help reduce long-term risks and provide a structured, predictable framework for transitioning toward a more sustainable economic model.

Taken together, the legal mandate established by the Supreme Court, the scientific consensus on the role of CO₂ in global warming, the clear public health implications, the economic rationale for correcting market failures, and the necessity of coordinated federal action all converge to support the conclusion that the EPA should regulate CO₂ emissions. Such regulation is not merely a policy preference but a logical extension of the agency’s statutory responsibilities and its foundational mission to protect human health and the environment.

so there's that..

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The obama era “endangerment finding” is the legal framework that allowed the government to set limits on the release of certain greenhouse gases.

Maybe someone in the oil and gas industry can explain how that frameworks purpose is, to quote Tiny, “to eliminate or kneecap our domestic oil industry.”

I fail to see how this framework had a deleterious effect on the oil sector.

It seems to me that this has less to do with the definition of CO2 as a pollutant and more to do with the ideology of deregulation.

ChatGPT tells me that in 2009, 45% to 50% of electricity generated in the USA came from coal. In 2023-2024, that share was down to 16% to 18%. Actual coal mined fell from 1.1 billion short tons in 2009 to 470 million to 500 million tons in 2025.

A good part of the declines was caused by Obama administration policies you mentioned, the Supreme Court case that pxmcc mentioned, and other regulatory activities by state and federal agencies aimed to decrease coal consumption.

Ultimately, the aim of climate advocates was to expand this to oil and gas. Biden, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Michael Bennett supported bans on fracking, no new drilling on federal leases, and/or no more leasing on federal lands or in federal water. Their goal was to drive the USA towards net "0" in short order (by 2050 or earlier). Biden implemented a ban on new drilling on and issuance of federal oil and gas leases, which he later lifted because of politics and the courts.

The risk that oil and gas companies will leave behind stranded assets because of government regulation raised their cost of capital. And affected banks and investors appetite for their equity and debt.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

A compelling case that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should regulate carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in response to global warming begins with the agency’s existing statutory authority and judicial interpretation of that authority. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases, including CO₂, fall within the definition of “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. The Court further determined that once the EPA finds that such emissions “endanger public health or welfare,” it has a duty to regulate them. The EPA’s subsequent endangerment finding concluded that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and pose risks to both human health and environmental stability. This legal framework transforms the issue from one of discretionary policymaking into one of statutory obligation: if CO₂ emissions are harmful within the meaning of the Act, regulatory action is not merely permissible but required.

Like I told you, the USA is run by lawyers and China by engineers. While the courts were kneecapping American energy and opening up the door for lawyers to sue the oil and gas companies out the existence, China helped its petroleum industry. The largest recipient of Chinese corporate subsidies in some datasets is Sinopec, a national oil company. China Petroleum and CNOOC are top recipients as well, as is CATL, the battery maker.

The USA is to oil and gas what China is to renewable energy, in terms of our technology and the number of wells we drill.

I'm not proposing that government subsidize oil and gas companies though. Just don't kneecap them. Unless it's with something like a reasonable carbon tax structured so it won't affect exports, and with tax revenue allocated to reduce the deficit or lower other taxes.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

The scientific basis for this regulatory responsibility is robust and widely accepted. Research synthesized by organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change demonstrates that CO₂ is the primary long-lived greenhouse gas driving anthropogenic climate change. By trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, elevated CO₂ concentrations contribute to rising global temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, and increased frequency of extreme weather events. These changes are not abstract or distant; they manifest in more intense heatwaves, stronger hurricanes, prolonged droughts, and rising sea levels. The accumulation of empirical evidence across multiple disciplines—climatology, oceanography, and atmospheric science—supports the conclusion that CO₂ emissions materially contribute to conditions that threaten ecological systems and human societies alike. In this context, regulatory intervention aligns directly with the EPA’s core mission to mitigate environmental harms grounded in scientific evidence.

Beyond environmental impacts, the public health implications of unchecked CO₂ emissions further strengthen the case for regulation. Climate change exacerbates heat-related illnesses and mortality, particularly among vulnerable populations such as the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. It also influences the distribution of vector-borne diseases, as warming temperatures expand the geographic range of disease-carrying organisms like mosquitoes. Additionally, higher temperatures can worsen air quality by increasing ground-level ozone formation, compounding respiratory risks. Under the Clean Air Act, the concept of “welfare” explicitly includes climate, weather, and ecosystem integrity, thereby linking environmental degradation to human well-being. Regulating CO₂ emissions, therefore, is not only an environmental imperative but also a direct public health intervention consistent with the EPA’s statutory purpose.

I don't accept a lot of that. Nine times more people die prematurely from cold than heat worldwide. In the USA it's 10 to 15 times more. On the net, global warming has saved lives so far. And has probably increased crop yields. Going forward that may not be the case. But McKinsey says it will cost $200 trillion to get to net zero by 2050. How many lives would be lost if a lot more of the world's resources are allocated to rapidly achieving net zero instead of other endeavors? How many lives could be saved, from, say, malaria mitigation measures with a very small fraction of that $200 trillion? Answer: multiples more than deaths we'll see from global warming.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

From an economic perspective, CO₂ emissions represent a classic example of a negative externality, where the full social costs of an activity are not borne by those who produce it. Firms and individuals emitting greenhouse gases do not directly pay for the downstream consequences, such as disaster recovery costs, infrastructure damage, or health care burdens associated with climate impacts. This misalignment leads to an overproduction of emissions relative to what would be socially optimal. Regulatory action by the EPA can correct this market failure by internalizing these external costs, whether through emissions standards, performance regulations, or incentives for cleaner technologies. Historically, environmental regulation in the United States has demonstrated that well-designed rules can reduce harmful emissions while fostering innovation and long-term economic resilience. In this sense, regulating CO₂ is not antithetical to economic growth but rather a mechanism for aligning market behavior with broader societal interests.

The interstate and global nature of climate change further justifies federal regulatory action. CO₂ emissions do not respect political boundaries; emissions produced in one state contribute to atmospheric concentrations that affect all others. This creates a collective action problem that cannot be effectively addressed through fragmented state-level policies alone. A centralized regulatory approach through the EPA ensures uniform standards, reduces regulatory uncertainty for industry, and facilitates coordination with international efforts to mitigate climate change. Without federal leadership, inconsistent policies could undermine both environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency.

That sounds like a good excuse for the attorney generals and plaintiffs' lawyers to sue the oil and gas companies out of existence and pocket tons of moolah in the process. Go back to LustyLad's point about China. We're 12% of global emissions. The developing world's carbon emissions are growing, ours our shrinking. So why shut down the domestic industry? Why take away the jobs of so many Texans and other Americans? Why cede to China and other countries leadership in oil and gas technology?

Fortunately I don't think this will work politically. The best way for a Democratic Party politician to drive Hispanics and Blacks to the Republican Party is to take away their jobs.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

Finally, regulating CO₂ emissions can be understood as a form of prudent risk management. Climate change presents the possibility of large-scale, potentially irreversible harms, including ecosystem collapse, severe economic disruption, and widespread human displacement. Even in the presence of some scientific uncertainty regarding the precise magnitude or timing of these impacts, the scale of the risk justifies precautionary action. Delaying regulation increases both the difficulty and the cost of mitigation, as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere over time. By acting within its established authority, the EPA can help reduce long-term risks and provide a structured, predictable framework for transitioning toward a more sustainable economic model.

No. Prudent risk management would require putting a lot more R&D money into geoengineering, because the USA isn't going to have much influence over total carbon emissions going forward.

Injection of SO2 into the stratosphere would probably work and is cheap. It does have drawbacks though. Marine cloud brightening needs a lot more research but would also be cheap and doesn't have many drawbacks. There are a lot of other ideas out there too.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

ChatGPT tells me that in 2009, 45% to 50% of electricity generated in the USA came from coal. In 2023-2024, that share was down to 16% to 18%. Actual coal mined fell from 1.1 billion short tons in 2009 to 470 million to 500 million tons in 2025.

A good part of the declines was caused by Obama administration policies you mentioned, the Supreme Court case that pxmcc mentioned, and other regulatory activities by state and federal agencies aimed to decrease coal consumption.

Ultimately, the aim of climate advocates was to expand this to oil and gas. Biden, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Michael Bennett supported bans on fracking, no new drilling on federal leases, and/or no more leasing on federal lands or in federal water. Their goal was to drive the USA towards net "0" in short order (by 2050 or earlier). Biden implemented a ban on new drilling on and issuance of federal oil and gas leases, which he later lifted because of politics and the courts.

The risk that oil and gas companies will leave behind stranded assets because of government regulation raised their cost of capital. And affected banks and investors appetite for their equity and debt.

You have made a persuasive argument but I would counter that the actions of the Trump administration have taken us too far in the other direction. We don’t need to keep our coal plants online. Fracking is only profitable when the global cost of oil and gas is closer to a hundred dollars per barrel than fifty dollars per barrel.

In fact one could argue that the chaos caused by the tariffs, especially steel tariffs are a bigger factor than cutting federal leases. While the war against Iran has enriched Russian oil production at the expense of our own military costs.

Not to mention the absolute insanity of stopping offshore wind power just because he doesn’t like looking at windmills.

When it gets right down to it the change in policy is an Executive Order and not a legislative action. It can be overturned on a whim by the next president. And if you believe in human caused climate change then it probably will.

[pxmcc]

i just wanted to make a quick point, which is that everyone in this thread has made really impressive posts on this issue. keep up the great research and writing..

ok back to CO2 regs..

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

According to NASA:
The top four dry gases in the atmosphere are:

1) Nitrogen (N2) 78.084%
2) Oxygen (O2) 20.946%
3) Argon (Ar) 0.934%
4) Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.042%

CO2 does not retain or deflect heat.

There is a Fifth element that does.
Actually it comes in it at #3 on the above list.

Pretty sure they do not have accurate measurements going back 3 million years ago, but they are confident that CO2 levels have historically been higher than modern days.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

CO2 does not retain or deflect heat.

Perhaps you should take a gander at this article generated by the scientific community at MIT.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-...eat-atmosphere
How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?

We’ll start our exploration of greenhouse gases with a single carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. Let’s say this CO2 molecule came from the exhaust in your car. From your tailpipe, it drifts up into the atmosphere, diffusing among the other gases. There, particles of light—photons—hit our molecule.

So what happens to those photons? “Greenhouse gas molecules will absorb that light, causing the bonds between atoms to vibrate,” says Jesse Kroll, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Chemical Engineering at MIT. “This traps the energy, which would otherwise go back into space, and so has the effect of heating up the atmosphere.” Basically, the bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms in our CO2 molecule bend and stretch to absorb photons. (With other greenhouse gases, the molecular bonds are different, but in all cases, they absorb photons, stopping them from leaving the atmosphere.)

Eventually, our CO2 molecule will release these photons. Sometimes, the photons continue out into space. But other times, they rebound back into the Earth’s atmosphere, where their heat remains trapped.

And importantly, greenhouse gases don’t absorb all photons that cross their paths. Instead, they mostly take in photons leaving the Earth for space. “CO2 molecules absorb infrared light at a few wavelengths, but the most important absorption is light of about 15 microns,” says Kroll. Incoming light from the sun tends to have much shorter wavelengths than this, so CO2 doesn’t stop this sunlight from warming the Earth in the first place. But when the Earth re-emits this light,2 it has a longer wavelength, in the infrared spectrum.

And the range of wavelengths around 15 microns is a particularly crucial window. The most common greenhouse gas, water vapor, doesn’t efficiently absorb photons in this range. So when CO2 grabs photons with wavelengths around 15 microns, it’s selecting for the same light that normally has the easiest time escaping Earth’s atmosphere.
… read the full article by clicking the link above.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Mar A Largo's western side is only a few feet above sea level.
So will Trump change his mind about warming? Or, blame something else? Or, is his recent write totally intentional, as he may end up with ocean front property?

[pxmcc]

^^lol..

[Unique_Carpenter]

For Rooster:
[s] Increase co2 and feed the trees, let the Ent's conquer the world. [/s]

[pxmcc]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

For Rooster:
[s] Increase co2 and feed the trees, let the Ent's conquer the world. [/s]

Ents are too slow. by the time they make a decision, we'll already be in Waterworld and evolving gills..