Talk About Dereliction Of Duty: EPA Off The Rails

[K-9]

Should be known as SEPA: as in Screw the EPA. But sadly, it’s par for the course as the Project 25 ideology continues to be implemented. Borders on criminal, imo. 

 

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5424434-trump-epa-zeldin-climate-change-denial/

[LTS]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Should be known as SEPA: as in Screw the EPA. But sadly, it’s par for the course as the Project 25 ideology continues to be implemented. Borders on criminal, imo. 

 

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5424434-trump-epa-zeldin-climate-change-denial/

Laughable. That said, an activist and caring population would document corporations that abuse pollution controls and the public would force a change. But we all know that won't happen as that takes work.  More work at least than being outraged that a transgender influencer doing a Bud Light commercial.

Quote

“There are lots of things which are essential for life, but when they become in excess, are damaging pollutants. It’s not an either-or” Howarth said. 

The phrase that pays.

Water, essential for life!  Until you breathe it.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

Laughable. That said, an activist and caring population would document corporations that abuse pollution controls and the public would force a change. But we all know that won't happen as that takes work.  More work at least than being outraged that a transgender influencer doing a Bud Light commercial.

The phrase that pays.

Water, essential for life!  Until you breathe it.

Those corporate abusers have been and continue to be well documented over the years. And all those regulations, instigated by an activist and caring population and a media that cared about their public trust responsibilities, were on the books to keep them accountable. But they are the among GOP’s largest donors (thanks Citizens United) and this corrupt administration knows where their bread is buttered. Trump literally offered oil companies roll backs in pollution regulations and unlimited drilling on federal lands in exchange for $1b in donations to his campaign and they are just keeping their promises to the big polluters. 

 

[LTS]

19 hours ago, K-9 said:

Those corporate abusers have been and continue to be well documented over the years. And all those regulations, instigated by an activist and caring population and a media that cared about their public trust responsibilities, were on the books to keep them accountable. But they are the among GOP’s largest donors (thanks Citizens United) and this corrupt administration knows where their bread is buttered. Trump literally offered oil companies roll backs in pollution regulations and unlimited drilling on federal lands in exchange for $1b in donations to his campaign and they are just keeping their promises to the big polluters. 

 

Of course.  And for all the documentation and awareness those corporate abusers have documented and shared there is little to no change in the behavior of the general public.

The sci-fi trend of the intergalactic being run by corporations didn't just start when Trump became President.  This has been the trend for a long, long time.  The people just sit back and allow it.  This is what prompts fiction writers to envision those dystopian futures.

Hell, the other day I saw someone on LinkedIN refer to themselves as having a career in Human Capital Management.  While people are resources, it really negates the humanity of it when you begin to refer to them as the same as a fleet of vehicles, etc.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 04:42 PM by LTS

[Taro T]

On 7/29/2025 at 1:28 PM, K-9 said:

Should be known as SEPA: as in Screw the EPA. But sadly, it’s par for the course as the Project 25 ideology continues to be implemented. Borders on criminal, imo. 

 

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5424434-trump-epa-zeldin-climate-change-denial/

 

Purely out of curiosity, which statute defines CO2 as a pollutant?  

[K-9]

12 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Purely out of curiosity, which statute defines CO2 as a pollutant?  

Quote

The Clean Air Act (CAA) defines CO2 as a pollutant, specifically through the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/549/497/. While the original text of the CAA didn't explicitly name CO2 as a pollutant, the Supreme Court ruling determined that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, including CO2, under the existing definition of "air pollutant". This was further clarified by the Inflation Reduction Act, which amended the CAA to explicitly include CO2 as an air pollutant.

From Wiki because I don't feel like summarizing the Supreme Court ruling and/or the further clarification contained in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

From Wiki because I don't feel like summarizing the Supreme Court ruling and/or the further clarification contained in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

 

No, that doesn't.

 

But even if it did, that came out in 2022.  The EPA has been regulating it as a pollutant since 2009.  Again what STATUTE declares CO2 (NOT CO) a pollutant?

[K-9]

10 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

No, that doesn't.

 

But even if it did, that came out in 2022.  The EPA has been regulating it as a pollutant since 2009.  Again what STATUTE declares CO2 (NOT CO) a pollutant?

That doesn’t what? Not sure what you’re seeking to argue about here. The SCOTUS gave the EPA broad authority in that ruling and regardless, both the Clean Air Act and the Inflation Reduction Act that further defined CO2 as a pollutant were passed by Congress.

But that is beside my point which is that this administration is scuttling the regulations designed to hold polluters responsible and giving them free rein to pollute. It’s a classic example of the fox being in charge of the hen house. 

Is car exhaust a pollutant? How about industrial runoff of chemicals into water systems? I don’t need an act of Congress to decide that for me. 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, K-9 said:

That doesn’t what? Not sure what you’re seeking to argue about here. The SCOTUS gave the EPA broad authority in that ruling and regardless, both the Clean Air Act and the Inflation Reduction Act that further defined CO2 as a pollutant were passed by Congress.

But that is beside my point which is that this administration is scuttling the regulations designed to hold polluters responsible and giving them free rein to pollute. It’s a classic example of the fox being in charge of the hen house. 

Is car exhaust a pollutant? How about industrial runoff of chemicals into water systems? I don’t need an act of Congress to decide that for me. 

No, the Clean Air Act does NOT list CO2 as a pollutant.  Carbon MONOXIDE is a pollutant per that law, not CO2.  And, as CO is a killer, it is appropriate to be regulated.

And perusing the IRA, yes, in it they do substitute CO2 for CO.  CO is not listed anywhere in the IRA.  So, apparently we no longer care about limiting actual pollutants.

And, no, CO2 should not be considered a pollutant.  It, along with water, is the natural byproduct of complete oxidation of hydrocarbons.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

No, the Clean Air Act does NOT list CO2 as a pollutant.  Carbon MONOXIDE is a pollutant per that law, not CO2.  And, as CO is a killer, it is appropriate to be regulated.

And perusing the IRA, yes, in it they do substitute CO2 for CO.  CO is not listed anywhere in the IRA.  So, apparently we no longer care about limiting actual pollutants.

And, no, CO2 should not be considered a pollutant.  It, along with water, is the natural byproduct of complete oxidation of hydrocarbons.

You asked what statute applied and I cited where the ruling on CO2 came from so your argument is with the SCOTUS and Congress because I’m not the one proclaiming CO2 as a pollutant, just that two things happened to have it classified as such: the 2007 SCOTUS ruling which said that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act and the further clarification on CO2 contained in the IRA. Since CO was already classified as a pollutant in the CAA, there was no need for further clarification in the IRA. Nobody suddenly dismissed CO as an actual pollutant. Ironically, it was the EPA’s argument in that 2007 SCOTUS case that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were NOT pollutants under the CAA. 

Again, my main concern isn’t who classified what as a pollutant or when, it’s the fact that this administration seeks to undo important environmental protections, regardless. 
 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by K-9

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

You asked what statute applied and I cited where the ruling on CO2 came from so your argument is with the SCOTUS and Congress because I’m not the one proclaiming CO2 as a pollutant, just that two things happened to have it classified as such: the 2007 SCOTUS ruling which said that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act and the further clarification on CO2 contained in the IRA. Since CO was already classified as a pollutant in the CAA, there was no need for further clarification in the IRA. Nobody suddenly dismissed CO as an actual pollutant. Ironically, it was the EPA’s argument in that 2007 SCOTUS case that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were NOT pollutants under the CAA. 

Again, my main concern isn’t who classified what as a pollutant or when, it’s the fact that this administration seeks to undo important environmental protections, regardless. 
 

 

 

In the original 1990 CAAA, CO is a listed pollutant.  In the IRA, where there is a listing of pollutants, CO2 replaces CO in that context.

And, the EPA in 2007 was correct.  CO2 is NOT a pollutant.  

And as CO2 is not a pollutant, there is no "important environmental protection(s)" to be gained by regulating its emissions.  IMHO, and apparently in that of the current EPA, the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding was in fact erroneous.

[K-9]

18 minutes ago, Taro T said:

In the original 1990 CAAA, CO is a listed pollutant.  In the IRA, where there is a listing of pollutants, CO2 replaces CO in that context.

And, the EPA in 2007 was correct.  CO2 is NOT a pollutant.  

And as CO2 is not a pollutant, there is no "important environmental protection(s)" to be gained by regulating its emissions.  IMHO, and apparently in that of the current EPA, the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding was in fact erroneous.

Again, your argument is with the SCOTUS and Congress. 

And again, Whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is irrelevant to my concern that the current EPA, under this administration, is seeking to reverse established environmental protections and that is not limited to CO2 emissions. 

[Taro T]

33 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Again, your argument is with the SCOTUS and Congress. 

And again, Whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is irrelevant to my concern that the current EPA, under this administration, is seeking to reverse established environmental protections and that is not limited to CO2 emissions. 

Fair enough.