EPA wants us to think greenhouses gases are safe

This week, the Environmental Protection Agency, now under the reach of the former member of the Long Island Republican Congress, Lee Zeldin, made a big mistake by moving to officially cancel a conclusion earlier than greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide are dangerous for people and can therefore be regulated by the agency under the Clean Act Act. If it was implemented, this, during the night, ax a decade and half of the constraints around the programs which are, no matter what Zeldin could claim, harmful to man.

The EPA seems to adopt the position that for something harmful, it must be harmful in an incredibly direct manner – it must have an immediately and measureable impact the health of those around it in the same way as the lead or sulfur or arsenic or other harmful substances could.

It may be true that something like carbon dioxide, naturally exhaled by humans when we breathe and usually present a presence in nature, is not something that instantly harm to our health or to endanger our lives in the same way as poisons, but it is indisputable that it is dangerous on a macro scale.

It doesn’t matter if the breathing is not as terrible for us if he will eventually make the whole planet less habitable, increase the probability that our cultures fail and that climate change will worsen, with warmer and warmer weather. This week’s scoring is not just a coincidence. Torrential showers are not either.

Zeldin knows, of course. He and his regulatory staff of the agency have access to all exhaustive and meticulous data compiled during the decades of work of EPA showing that greenhouse emissions are major contributors to climate change, which in itself is probably the greatest artificial threat not only to prosperity, but human life itself almost nuclear.

The conclusion of the EPA in this regard dates back to 2009 and was a guiding philosophy through the time of Barack Obama in power, Donald Trump’s first mandate and Joe Biden’s time as president.

The reason why they make this change now after 16 years as accepted science is not because one of the underlying sciences has changed or researchers to different conclusions, but because they understand that their role realizes the elements of the short-term political agenda of the Trump administration.

These inexplicably include a preference sponsored by the State for the dirty energy sources of the past as opposed to the growth industry of renewable energies, which would not only be better for our environment but would have the potential to create thousands of new American jobs. Instead, Trump made sure that the incentives for these renewable technologies were rolled up in the ultra-maga budget bill that the subordinate congress recently sent to him and is determined to clean the oil and gas and coal pathway to dominate.

This is not a matter concluded, and the public will now have the chance to comment on Zeldin’s proposal. It seems likely that the administration is essentially trying to ignore the comments of the public since they already ignore underlying science, but these things still make a difference.

During Trump’s first term, many rules and regulations were canceled precisely because the administration did not seem interested in following the normal rules and procedures for creating federal rules, in particular by engaging significantly with comments and providing rational bases for their actions. Although they certainly tried to represent themselves as above the law, this is not the case. If they are unable to defend this rule, it could be withdrawn or chopped before the court. So let’s hope, for all our sakes.