Endangerment Finding in danger?

In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed that the current and projected concentrations of six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Recently, President-elect Trump picked Lee Zeldin to lead the EPA and a Republican-controlled Senate subsequently confirmed Zeldin's appointment. More recently, in an EPA news release, Zeldin said that President Trump’s Executive Order gave the EPA Administrator a deadline to submit recommendations on the legality and continuing applicability of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. Having submitted these recommendations, the EPA can now announce its intent to reconsider the 2009 Endangerment Finding.

Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus, Vermont Law & Graduate School, comments that for Zeldin to revoke the Endangerment Finding, procedures must be followed and that could take months, while lawsuits will immediately challenge the move. Even if Zeldin is able to revoke the finding, that does not automatically repeal all the rules that rely on it. Each of those rules must go through separate rulemaking processes that will also take months. To the extent that Zeldin is counting on the conservative Supreme Court to back him up, he may be disappointed. In 2024, the court overturned the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations when laws were ambiguous. That means Zeldin’s reinterpretation of the statute is not entitled to deference. Nor can he count on the court overturning its Massachusetts v. EPA ruling to free him to disregard science for policy reasons.

Dictatorship versus democracy

Nonetheless, it is worrying if a President, backed by the Senate and through appointment of judges and heads of agencies such as the EPA, is able to effectively act like a dictator. It is even more worrying to see this happen in a country like the U.S., which after all has long taken great pride in having replaced the rule of a monarch by "We, the people" and having put in place many safeguards to avoid arbitrary rule, safeguards such as separation of powers, delegation of decision-making to lower governments and inclusion of clauses in the Constitution to protect fundamental rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, next to the right to vote and equal right to justice.

The War for Independence from the British Monarchy ended in 1783 by the Treaty of Paris, in which 'His Brittanic Majesty' acknowledges the United States to be free sovereign and Independent States. This was followed by the United States Constitution, which in its first three words – 'We The People' – affirms that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens, while the Constitution also separates the government into three branches to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

The need for policies to comply with best available science

The current situation should act as a wake up call. This is not merely a debate about interpretation of law or following a political ideology. This touches everyone and everybody should get involved in efforts to do the right thing. Dictatorship in itself is bad enough, but it's even worse when it serves climate change denial. The danger of climate change is real and this reality can and must compel any government, whatever its ideological background, to look for and adopt policies that are in line with best available science. This constitutes a necessity that, where there appears to be a conflict, must overrule even what the Supreme Court, the President or Congress may decree—something so obvious that people at the time didn't see a need for it to be enshrined in the Constitution. People did clearly recognize the importance of putting in place safeguards against arbitrary rule, but clearly more should be done now.

Principles for all to follow

In many Commonwealth jurisdictions, the provision for laws to be for the peace, order and good government is highlighted in their constitution, defining the principles under which legislation must be enacted by the respective parliament. As an example, the Australian Constitution vests the legislative power of the Commonwealth of Australia in its Federal Parliament, stating that Parliament has the power, subject to this Constitution, to make laws with respect to matters such as taxation, bounties, trade and commerce, while highlighting that such laws must be for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. Surely, "good government" comes with the imperative for all three branches of government (legislative, executive and judicial) to accept the dangers of climate change and act accordingly.

Europe has long embraced the principle of subsidiarity (preference for decision-making to occur at the lowest level of authority capable of addressing the issue, thus promoting local autonomy and participation). Additionally, some nations have ensured that the duty for government to support the environment is enshrined in their constitution, e.g. in the Netherlands, article 21 of the Constitution imposes the duty on government to keep the country habitable and to protect and improve the environment.

For the sake of democracy and the urgent need to act on climate change, good principles must be adopted and followed. Scientists should follow principles when doing research. Journalists should follow principles when writing reports. Politicians should implement forms of democracy that support decision-making at local level. Local areas can best develop sets of local feebates and institute Local People's Courts in which randomly-chosen local residents deliver verdicts to ensure that policies are indeed in line with best available science. Where needed, progress with climate action should be supported by a Climate Emergency Declaration.

Climate Emergency Declaration

The situation is dire and the precautionary principle calls for rapid, comprehensive and effective action to reduce the damage and to improve the situation, as described in this 2022 post, where needed in combination with a Climate Emergency Declaration, as discussed at this group.

Links

• Transforming Society
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/10/transforming-society.html

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Climate Emergency Declaration
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climate-emergency-declaration.html

Mainstream Media Biased By Focusing On Climate Denial

Hearings of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology recently degenerated into a farce, as three fringe scientists were paraded next to “mainstream-scientist” Michael Mann. The Hearing turned out to have little or no intention to live up to its stated goal of examining the “scientific method and process as it relates to climate change” and instead turned into a theater to stage climate science denial.

Reports of the event confirmed the bias of mainstream media to focus on climate denial while ignoring the side of the Climate Spectrum that is sounding the alarm, as also illustrated by the image below.

Indeed, in discussions on climate change, why ignore the side of the Climate Spectrum that is sounding the alarm? Accordingly, a poll at the ArcticNews group asked: “Who would you instead like to appear in a discussion with Michael Mann?” The results are shown below:

It must be said that not all media are ignoring the warnings. Some media did pick up alerts, e.g. those contained in a recent post at Arctic-news, with the RT video getting a lot of views, shares and comments on facebook and youtube. Will there be further media following these examples?

How to part ways with a climate denier that has incredible stamina...

Paul Beckwith, with other scientists in Ottawa
protesting against the "Death of Evidence"

By Paul Beckwith,

On a Canadian chess blog (chesstalk.com) there is a thread called “The NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever” that has been ongoing for over two years. Basically, I educate the chess community on climate change and many chess players that are rabid deniers gang up and hurl invective and deny fervently. A waste of time for me? Perhaps? Likely not, since it has hardened my resolve and energized me in my climate change study/research/lobbying/etc. etc. In fact, now I generally have great fun at hurling invective back until it starts to get out of hand. Then it is no longer fun or useful so I part-ways with the person, as happened tonight…


Mr/Mrs. XXXXX,

It used to bother me when people such as yourself that know absolutely squat about climate change (a subject in which I am an expert and forever striving to increase that expertise) make claims that are completely without scientific merit, in fact that are downright wrong, quite often intentionally wrong. Why? In most subjects this would not matter. Not so with climate change. Because our climate is collapsing around us and there are still many many people that fail to see this. So humanity will not act, and it will get worse and worse until there will not be a single person on the planet that does not experience gut-wrenching change. People are dying now, and will be dying in ever greater numbers from the near-term changes that are underway. Massive crop failure in the U.S. this year will not starve people in North America but will stress the economy and pocketbooks of many residents. It will starve people already in poverty who pay 25% or 50% of their incomes on food now. North Americans will not panic over one year of crop failure. However if it happens the following year, and the one after that, and after that then the system will snap.

Climate denialism and such nonsense no longer bothers me because I have learned how to deal with such people and views. As is absolutely required for anyone in the field of climatology. How? I initially take the time to explain some science and educate but when it is clear that I am dealing with an immovable object like yourself or yyyyy I just have some fun with it and hurl a few insults, etc. However this gets old and distracting and unproductive very quickly and wastes a lot of time. As it has now, in your case.

It no longer bothers me because our planet is now committed to this gut-wrenching change. The sea ice will be gone very soon and the roller coaster ride will be unstoppable. If I was Obama or Putin or any other world leader I would declare "War on Warming", cool the Arctic with geoengineering to keep the sea ice intact and the methane in the ground and undergo a crash program to slash emissions. But I am not. So I do what I can to educate people/inform them/get the word out. I join organizations like AMEG (Arctic Methane Emergency Group). I meet with politicians at all levels of government and talk about the urgency of climate change and necessity of rapidly cooling the Arctic. I have a clear conscience because I have tried. I know that many people around the world will die, I know that unbelievable changes are starting to occur and will explode in frequency, amplitude, spatial extent and impact over this decade, and I know that the general public will be in shock when their familiar climate system becomes a complete stranger to them...Personally, as I have acquired more and more knowledge over the course of my Ph.D. studies in abrupt climate change, I have passed through the shock stage, and the subsequent unaccepting stage of grief a long time ago, I am in the acceptance stage now.

Apologies, it was a blast to hurl invective back and forth, but I am not playing that game anymore. I will not be reading ANY of your posts on this thread, for a while anyway. I need a XXXXX break.

P.S. I did not take the time to write this post just for your sake alone. I am posting it, with your name removed, in social media under the heading "How to part ways with a climate denier that has incredible stamina . . .". Thanks for the learning experience.