Looks like the Trumpistas are aiming their harpoons at another whale:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said that the agency will review the agency’s endangerment finding — the “holy grail of the climate change religion” that has created over a trillion dollars in regulatory impact.
Wut dat? Breitbart explains:
The finding stated that greenhouse gas emissions are an alleged threat to public health and welfare.
And when you look at the data which supposedly supports the finding, it, like most other “environmental” data, is a bunch of codswallop.
The EPA proceeded in an unorthodox manner. Slicing and dicing the language of the statute, it made an “endangerment finding” totally separate from any actual rulemaking-setting standards for emissions from cars. EPA argued it had the authority to do this because Congress didn’t specifically forbid it from taking this approach. By taking this approach, the endangerment finding intentionally ignored costs of regulations that EPA knew would follow from the finding — and indeed ignored any other policy impacts of those regulations.
Results (that you or I would care about)?
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation, said that the EPA regulations that arose from the endangerment finding have contributed to automobile prices to rise from $23,000 in 2009 to nearly $50,000 now.
The EPA has relied on the endangerment finding for seven vehicle regulations that reportedly have an aggregate cost of more than one trillion dollars, according to the agency’s own regulatory impact analyses.
We all knew that enviro-bullshit was behind so much of the price increases — that, and the raft of “safety” regulations that accompanied them.
My message to Sec. Lee Zeldin:
Get rid of that stuff.
Me, I’d like to see the FedGov refund some of that trillion-dollar price increase to everyone who bought cars and trucks — internal-combustion-driven cars and trucks, that is — from 2009 until today.
Why? Because it was taken from these buyers by government malfeasance.
And if our current government wants to “claw back” some of that money from the people and organizations who instigated this swindle, that would be fine, too.
around the house.
