EPA Head Zeldin on "Ruthless" podcast
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| FOX News accidentally exposes Zeldin's lies... https://newrepublic.com/post/198606/fox-news-epa-lee-zeldin-greenhouse-gas-heat-wave |
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Cognitive dissonance… maybe from all the microplastics… Wow, MAGA really do hate their own children. Sad! |
Anonymous
What??? No idea what you’re trying to say but if you hate doctors and healthcare so much, then just don’t participate in it. Don’t ever go to a healthcare provider or hospital. That’s a win-win. |
Anonymous
|
CAFE standards are gone! Hip Hip Hooray!
https://issuesinsights.com/2025/07/25/car-lovers-rejoice-after-50-miserable-years-cafe-standards-are-dead/ |
Anonymous
Wow, what a junk article! It’s deregulation fan fiction dressed as journalism. Let's look at its laughable claims. "CAFE Killed Cars and People" That 2002 stat blaming fuel standards for traffic deaths? Cherry-picked. It ignored major safety improvements and the fact that car design, not just weight, drives crash outcomes. "Automakers Got Fleeced" A few fines (like Chrysler’s) don’t mean routine punishment and in fact automakers go years and years without any issues. Most companies dodge penalties through fleet credits and tech upgrades. Calling it a "bloodbath" is pure melodrama completely detached from reality. "CAFE Forced the SUV Boom" Nope. That was consumer demand and marketing swagger. Blaming CAFE for station wagons’ demise and gas-hogging SUVs is lazy revisionism. "Obama’s MPG Rule = EV Mandate" 54.5 mpg was projected average, not a demand for pure EVs. Automakers had flexible paths - hybrids, credits, innovations. The article oversells the idea of an "EV conspiracy." "The Bill Killed CAFE Forever" Congress didn't "wipe out" fuel economy standards. It just says they won't be penalized for not meeting them. But there are lots of incentives for auto makers to still strive to maintain them regardless of what Congress did. |
Anonymous
safety improvements plus higher weight is better than safety improvements plus lower weight. |
Anonymous
There's a damning article in Slate detailing how Trump's EPA has gone completely rogue where the courts and scientific research and findings are concerned: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/08/epa-climate-change-greenhouse-gases-pollutant-scary.html As noted above, EPA has proposed rescinding its 2009 "endangerment finding"—the key determination that greenhouse gases (GHGs) harm public health and welfare. This reversal, coupled with a plan to repeal all federal vehicle emissions standards, represents what Slate calls the “most damaging climate change–related regulatory action ever.” Legal, scientific, and economic justifications offered by the agency are flimsy and professionally irresponsible. Key Trump EPA Actions That Contradict Law or Supreme Court Rulings: - Rescinded the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding: Violates Clean Air Act and statutory definition of “welfare.” The Act explicitly includes climate impacts. Courts affirm broad interpretation with no “local-only” pollution constraint. - Repealing All GHG Standards for Vehicles: Contradicts Massachusetts v. EPA SCOTUS held that EPA must regulate GHGs from vehicles under the Clean Air Act. EPA’s reasoning directly opposes this finding. - Completely Mischaracterizes UARG v. EPA: Trump EPA claims it can't treat GHGs as pollutants, but UARG upheld EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs in specific programs. - Ignores American Electric Power v. Connecticut: Trump's EPA defies a binding precedent, this case confirmed EPA’s authority to regulate CO₂ under multiple Clean Air Act provisions. - Redefines “Air Pollutant” to Exclude Global Emissions: This is a completely fabricated statutory interpretation. Trump's EPA invented a "local pollution only" rule not found anywhere in the statute. Trump EPA's moves that are not only anti-science, but defy economic logic: - Claims that eliminating vehicle GHGs wouldn't impact climate change, ignoring the fact that transportation is the largest U.S. emissions source. - Cites a fringe, non-peer-reviewed report from climate science “dissenters” handpicked by the Energy Secretary. - Ignores fuel-saving benefits and climate advantages in its cost-benefit analysis, creating a tautological case that regulations only have costs when benefits are excluded. These moves are engineered to try and bypass the courts, bypass statutes, ignore precedents, and to short-circuit the entire regulatory framework for addressing climate pollution. |
Anonymous
"Bigger is safer" plateaus at around 4,000 pounds, after which bigger cars aren't much safer but instead become increasingly more dangerous to other motorists and pedestrians. Harder to control, more mass and momentum, harder to stop, and they hit much harder when they crash. Ford F-series, Chevy Silverados, Dodge Rams etc have higher accident rates and much higher fatality rates in collisions than your typical sedan or crossover SUV. A Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Mazda CX-5, Subaru Outback etc outranks them for safety while also delivering significantly better mileage. |
Anonymous
For some MAGAs, climate change denial is indeed a religion. Many MAGAs are just anti-science skeptics who have been swayed by fossil-fuel-funded disinformation and propaganda. However, there are also many white, evangelical MAGA supporters who have been among the most consistent climate change deniers, and for many of them, Dominionist theology is at the core - that's the belief that Christians are commanded to control and shape society, including how we treat the planet. Their views are less a matter of theology but more politics, identity and apocalyptic belief. For them: Climate science is often seen as anti-God, anti-America, or part of a globalist hoax. Earth isn’t something to protect—it’s something to “subdue,” per Genesis. End-times thinking makes environmental collapse seem inevitable or irrelevant. Regulation and climate treaties? Viewed as threats to freedom and sovereignty. This is all cultish thinking on their part, with no real basis in reality. Yet it persists strongly. I love that someone brought up CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer. It destroys a lot of the narrative, whether religious, or skeptical alike. The skeptics say things like "man can't possibly be having that much of an effect on the atmosphere because it's so vast" - yet CFCs created a dangerous hole in the ozone layer, proving man can indeed have a significant effect. But then there's the pivot to, "even if climate change is real, we can't really do anything about it / why should we if China isn't / oh but why bother with vehicle emissions if we aren't also doing x, y, z" which also picks up the apocalyptic religious MAGAs waiting for the "End Times" - the fact that the world was able to come together and solve the CFC issue to mend the hole in the ozone layer SHOWS that we can potentially still fix it. And, the arguments work both ways - because Trump backing out of the Paris climate accord gave China a way out. Returning to the table puts China back on the hook. Meanwhile the MAGAs also ignore the fact that China HAS NOT given up, and in fact is putting in more renewable power via solar, wind, and advanced technologies like thorium reactors than the rest of the world combined. |
Anonymous
So Trump's EPA head is ignoring the laws and statutes, and is ignoring and misrepresenting and outright lying about not just one but numerous court orders. This is truly a lawless banana-republic administration. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
CAFE standards produce cars weighing much less than 4000 pounds. |