in a heineous decision, Trump overturns an EPA finding from 2009 that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant responsible, in significant part, for global warming, using hack scientists to support his EO..
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0zdd7yl4vo
can you say, let's go backwards and deny scientific facts..
the sooner he is removed, the better chance the planet has to recover from the last 150 years of CO2 and CH4 anthropogenic emissions and the havoc they are sowing on a global scale..
has Trump ever tried to get affordable homeowners' insurance on the Gulf Coast, or any other vulnerable region like So. Cali.? it does not exist. gee, i wonder why..
- pxmcc
- 02-16-2026, 11:58 AM
- rooster
- 02-16-2026, 04:26 PM
Most Trump moves to sell out our future are harder to parse.
Not this one.
The Climate Change Deniers think they win. But it's not the case. This is just another pass-through for Big Oil and Big Car Manufacturing.
Meanwhile, this only adds to the probability that U.S. Car Manufacturing will ultimately fail. That future belongs to China and their battery and EV industries. This gives them another leg up. Ford gets to sell even MORE F-150's. For the short term. But they are doomed.
I repeat what I have warned MAGA of many times:
Your grandchildren, should they deign to even speak to you, gonna ask WTF were you thinking?
.
Not this one.
The Climate Change Deniers think they win. But it's not the case. This is just another pass-through for Big Oil and Big Car Manufacturing.
Meanwhile, this only adds to the probability that U.S. Car Manufacturing will ultimately fail. That future belongs to China and their battery and EV industries. This gives them another leg up. Ford gets to sell even MORE F-150's. For the short term. But they are doomed.
I repeat what I have warned MAGA of many times:
Your grandchildren, should they deign to even speak to you, gonna ask WTF were you thinking?
.
- pxmcc
- 02-17-2026, 04:17 AM
the impacts are many and serious. here are just a few:
Declaring carbon dioxide (CO2) not a pollutant involves reversing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 "endangerment finding," which legalizes the removal of federal oversight on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources. Based on reports from early 2026, the potential negative effects of this policy include:
Environmental and Climate Consequences
Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Repealing the endangerment finding could increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 10% over the next 30 years, as limits on fossil fuel emissions are removed.
Worsened Climate Change Impacts: Reduced regulation is projected to lead to more severe heat waves, drought, wildfires, and intense flooding, as CO2 continues to drive global temperature increases.
Increased Coal/Oil Pollution: Repealing Section 111 standards could allow some of the largest power plants to release nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide.
Health and Safety Risks
Public Health Hazards: Removing these protections is linked to higher rates of asthma, heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases, and premature deaths.
Rise in Heat-Related Deaths: As climate change fuels higher temperatures, the loss of emission controls is expected to increase heat-related illnesses and fatalities.
Reduced Air Quality: The policy may allow for higher levels of toxic pollutants, including mercury, to be emitted from power plants.
Economic and Legal Impacts
Loss of Vehicle Efficiency Standards: The move eliminates federal standards for fuel efficiency, which could lead to more gas-guzzling vehicles and higher gasoline costs for consumers.
Automaker Competitiveness Risks: While intended to help the U.S. auto industry, the shift away from electric vehicle (EV) standards may leave U.S. automakers behind competitors in China and Europe that are shifting toward cleaner, more efficient technology.
Regulatory Chaos and Lawsuits: The action is expected to trigger a barrage of lawsuits, potentially creating a "patchwork of systems" where some states regulate emissions while others do not.
Economic Disruption: Projections suggest these changes could cost states billions in damages, with one estimate indicating Michigan could lose $5.5 billion in GDP by 2035.
Long-Term Policy Reversal
Blocking Future Action: The primary goal of this move is to prevent future administrations from easily reestablishing regulations to tackle climate change.
Eroding Scientific Basis: The action disregards scientific consensus that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels threaten public health, treating climate change action as a "scam".
and about those homeowners' insurance policies availability and affordability..
what say you all..
Declaring carbon dioxide (CO2) not a pollutant involves reversing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 "endangerment finding," which legalizes the removal of federal oversight on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources. Based on reports from early 2026, the potential negative effects of this policy include:
Environmental and Climate Consequences
Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Repealing the endangerment finding could increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 10% over the next 30 years, as limits on fossil fuel emissions are removed.
Worsened Climate Change Impacts: Reduced regulation is projected to lead to more severe heat waves, drought, wildfires, and intense flooding, as CO2 continues to drive global temperature increases.
Increased Coal/Oil Pollution: Repealing Section 111 standards could allow some of the largest power plants to release nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide.
Health and Safety Risks
Public Health Hazards: Removing these protections is linked to higher rates of asthma, heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases, and premature deaths.
Rise in Heat-Related Deaths: As climate change fuels higher temperatures, the loss of emission controls is expected to increase heat-related illnesses and fatalities.
Reduced Air Quality: The policy may allow for higher levels of toxic pollutants, including mercury, to be emitted from power plants.
Economic and Legal Impacts
Loss of Vehicle Efficiency Standards: The move eliminates federal standards for fuel efficiency, which could lead to more gas-guzzling vehicles and higher gasoline costs for consumers.
Automaker Competitiveness Risks: While intended to help the U.S. auto industry, the shift away from electric vehicle (EV) standards may leave U.S. automakers behind competitors in China and Europe that are shifting toward cleaner, more efficient technology.
Regulatory Chaos and Lawsuits: The action is expected to trigger a barrage of lawsuits, potentially creating a "patchwork of systems" where some states regulate emissions while others do not.
Economic Disruption: Projections suggest these changes could cost states billions in damages, with one estimate indicating Michigan could lose $5.5 billion in GDP by 2035.
Long-Term Policy Reversal
Blocking Future Action: The primary goal of this move is to prevent future administrations from easily reestablishing regulations to tackle climate change.
Eroding Scientific Basis: The action disregards scientific consensus that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels threaten public health, treating climate change action as a "scam".
and about those homeowners' insurance policies availability and affordability..
what say you all..
- txdot-guy
- 02-17-2026, 04:32 AM
The Trump administration’s desire to roll back our society into the fifties is highly questionable. What’s next? Leaded Gasoline?
- Ripmany
- 02-17-2026, 05:15 AM
in a heineous decision, Trump overturns an EPA finding from 2009 that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant responsible, in significant part, for global warming, using hack scientists to support his EO..Ch4 national gas CO2 however is pullation natural and with reason but pollution unless you a plant
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0zdd7yl4vo
can you say, let's go backwards and deny scientific facts..
the sooner he is removed, the better chance the planet has to recover from the last 150 years of CO2 and CH4 anthropogenic emissions and the havoc they are sowing on a global scale..
has Trump ever tried to get affordable homeowners' insurance on the Gulf Coast, or any other vulnerable region like So. Cali.? it does not exist. gee, i wonder why.. Originally Posted by pxmcc
- pxmcc
- 02-17-2026, 05:47 AM
- elghund
- 02-17-2026, 05:49 AM
- TheDaliLama
- 02-17-2026, 06:43 AM
Perhaps all Democrats should do their part and stop breathing. The world would be a much better place.
- Jacuzzme
- 02-17-2026, 06:58 AM
The F150 is doomed? LOL!
- Salty Again
- 02-17-2026, 08:02 AM
... No, The Trump Administration is saying that CO2 emissions
are NOT the extreme "threat" that the wacky "Global Warning" droobs
believe it to be.
#### Salty
are NOT the extreme "threat" that the wacky "Global Warning" droobs
believe it to be.
#### Salty
- Yssup Rider
- 02-17-2026, 08:17 AM
- Yssup Rider
- 02-17-2026, 08:18 AM
... No, The Trump Administration is saying that CO2 emissionsNo, that’s wrong again Salty. try and work on your reading comprehension. I think it’s equally important in Australia as it is in Pensyltucky.
are NOT the extreme "threat" that the wacky "Global Warning" droobs
believe it to be.
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
- RX792P
- 02-17-2026, 08:46 AM
... No, The Trump Administration is saying that CO2 emissionsBefore you are proven wrong again, you might want to read the
are NOT the extreme "threat" that the wacky "Global Warning" droobs
believe it to be.
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
actual 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/e...r-section-202a
In case your attention span is too short, here's a synopsis
https://woods.stanford.edu/news/epa-...d-health-risks
BTW, here's the actual recission
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emis...s-endangerment
- Levianon17
- 02-17-2026, 08:50 AM
in a heineous decision, Trump overturns an EPA finding from 2009 that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant responsible, in significant part, for global warming, using hack scientists to support his EO..Trump is partially correct. C02 is essential for plant growth. Plants need C02 to make sugars and release oxygen through photosynthesis. So C02 is not a pollutant in that respect.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0zdd7yl4vo
can you say, let's go backwards and deny scientific facts..
the sooner he is removed, the better chance the planet has to recover from the last 150 years of CO2 and CH4 anthropogenic emissions and the havoc they are sowing on a global scale..
has Trump ever tried to get affordable homeowners' insurance on the Gulf Coast, or any other vulnerable region like So. Cali.? it does not exist. gee, i wonder why.. Originally Posted by pxmcc
- pxmcc
- 02-17-2026, 08:55 AM
Trump is partially correct. C02 is essential for plant growth. Plants need C02 to make sugars and release oxygen through photosynthesis. So C02 is not a pollutant in that respect. Originally Posted by Levianon17and when CO2 levels reach a level not seen in 3 million years-yup we're there already-when the planet was a helluva lot hotter, what then? still fine and dandy, i gather?..
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...&highlight=CO2