I wish to reduce CO2 emissions but the “Endangerment Finding” in 2009 was the most creative interpretation of the Clean Air Act ever devised. The 1970 Clean Air Act and later amendments did not expressly target greenhouse gases like CO2. Congress’ focus at that time was on local air quality problems (smog, particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide). In the 1990 amendments, Congress considered and ultimately chose not to adopt direct greenhouse gas regulatory provisions, indicating Congress did not intend to give EPA broad CO2 regulatory authority under the Act. The SC in Massachusetts v. EPA made a partisan ruling (5 to 4) to intentionally ignore the intent of the law, and instead rule strictly on its current meaning. Since the legislation was written very broadly, they ruled that CO2 could be covered.

We know the ruling was partisan because these same judges have ruled using originalist interpretations in the past. For example Stevens argued for congressional intent re INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987).

If the American people wish to regulate CO2, it should pass a law with the intent to do so. Hijacking legislation which was never intended for this purpose was always going to be rescinded. Just like Trump’s executive orders are going to be easily rescinded.

“Revoked a scientific finding” is as smart as saying “water not wet anymore”.

It’s honestly hard to imagine being that much of a piece of shit and a moron at the same time.

I wonder how long until he changes it from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Environmental Exploration Exploitation Agency.

This will surely help Elon sell electric cars