EPA Head Zeldin on "Ruthless" podcast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
- Claims that eliminating vehicle GHGs wouldn't impact climate change, ignoring the fact that transportation is the largest U.S. emissions source.

It is called GLOBAL warming. US transportation is not the largest global emissions source. It probably isn't the largest US source either, but they have switched a lot of power plants away from coal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Montreal protocol gave exceptions to China, India, and other developing countries. In fact, China and India took advantage of this exception to produce CFCs and then burn them to collect carbon credits from Europe.

China may be increasing renewables, but they are also increasing coal, when the goal is a 90% cut globally. Instead China and India are about 40% of emissions, and other countries outside of Europe and US are 30%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- Claims that eliminating vehicle GHGs wouldn't impact climate change, ignoring the fact that transportation is the largest U.S. emissions source.

It is called GLOBAL warming. US transportation is not the largest global emissions source. It probably isn't the largest US source either, but they have switched a lot of power plants away from coal.

Meanwhile China is embracing EVs and solar and 2000s technologies while Trump has us propping up 1900s fossil fuel technologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Montreal protocol gave exceptions to China, India, and other developing countries. In fact, China and India took advantage of this exception to produce CFCs and then burn them to collect carbon credits from Europe.

China may be increasing renewables, but they are also increasing coal, when the goal is a 90% cut globally. Instead China and India are about 40% of emissions, and other countries outside of Europe and US are 30%.

Bogus talking points. The Montreal Protocol is still a success and net win. Yes, some developing countries like China and India received exemptions, but they were time-limited phasedown exceptions. And despite those early loopholes the Montreal Protocol still led to a 98.6% global phaseout of ozone-depleting substances.

Likewise, despite exemptions India cut its greenhouse gas output by 465 million tons of CO2 equivalent.

You'll have to post a credible citation proving that China and India "burned CFCs for carbon credits" - if there were any instances of that they were rare and/or unverified.

And yes, China and India are still burning coal, but that is not their longterm plan, it's to meet short-term need and they are still targeting carbon phaseout. It's no excuse whatsoever to fold arms, huff and throw in the towel. That's absolutely stupid, it's like quitting a marathon because the first mile was uphill. Bottom line is that even while the treaties aren't flawless, they have still delivered significant wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"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.

CAFE standards produce cars weighing much less than 4000 pounds.

This is false and there is no such thing as a "CAFE weight" for cars. There is an ever increasing range of hybrid sedans, SUVs, trucks and so on that meet CAFE standards and which are as safe as any other car on the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- Claims that eliminating vehicle GHGs wouldn't impact climate change, ignoring the fact that transportation is the largest U.S. emissions source.

It is called GLOBAL warming. US transportation is not the largest global emissions source. It probably isn't the largest US source either, but they have switched a lot of power plants away from coal.

Meanwhile China is embracing EVs and solar and 2000s technologies while Trump has us propping up 1900s fossil fuel technologies.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=~CHN

The question is, is it the case that China is lying about its intentions to trick rubes like you, or are people like you pretending to believe China's lies to try and trick rubes like me into adopting your statist plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"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.

CAFE standards produce cars weighing much less than 4000 pounds.

This is false and there is no such thing as a "CAFE weight" for cars. There is an ever increasing range of hybrid sedans, SUVs, trucks and so on that meet CAFE standards and which are as safe as any other car on the road.

Previous poster said heavier is safer is false past 4000 pounds. I point out that CAFE lowered car weights, and to a level much lower than 4000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Montreal protocol gave exceptions to China, India, and other developing countries. In fact, China and India took advantage of this exception to produce CFCs and then burn them to collect carbon credits from Europe.

China may be increasing renewables, but they are also increasing coal, when the goal is a 90% cut globally. Instead China and India are about 40% of emissions, and other countries outside of Europe and US are 30%.

Bogus talking points. The Montreal Protocol is still a success and net win. Yes, some developing countries like China and India received exemptions, but they were time-limited phasedown exceptions. And despite those early loopholes the Montreal Protocol still led to a 98.6% global phaseout of ozone-depleting substances.

Likewise, despite exemptions India cut its greenhouse gas output by 465 million tons of CO2 equivalent.

You'll have to post a credible citation proving that China and India "burned CFCs for carbon credits" - if there were any instances of that they were rare and/or unverified.

And yes, China and India are still burning coal, but that is not their longterm plan, it's to meet short-term need and they are still targeting carbon phaseout. It's no excuse whatsoever to fold arms, huff and throw in the towel. That's absolutely stupid, it's like quitting a marathon because the first mile was uphill. Bottom line is that even while the treaties aren't flawless, they have still delivered significant wins.

People are saying because Montreal was a win, so too with CO2. I am pointing out that under Montreal, China and India were exempted, therefore you can't use that as proof.
India has increased its CO2 emissions considerable, and is now higher than the entire EU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- Claims that eliminating vehicle GHGs wouldn't impact climate change, ignoring the fact that transportation is the largest U.S. emissions source.

It is called GLOBAL warming. US transportation is not the largest global emissions source. It probably isn't the largest US source either, but they have switched a lot of power plants away from coal.

Meanwhile China is embracing EVs and solar and 2000s technologies while Trump has us propping up 1900s fossil fuel technologies.

China loves it when other countries pass restrictions on CO2 emissions, and will play along to make it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- Claims that eliminating vehicle GHGs wouldn't impact climate change, ignoring the fact that transportation is the largest U.S. emissions source.

It is called GLOBAL warming. US transportation is not the largest global emissions source. It probably isn't the largest US source either, but they have switched a lot of power plants away from coal.

Meanwhile China is embracing EVs and solar and 2000s technologies while Trump has us propping up 1900s fossil fuel technologies.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=~CHN

The question is, is it the case that China is lying about its intentions to trick rubes like you, or are people like you pretending to believe China's lies to try and trick rubes like me into adopting your statist plans?

It's no "trick for the rubes" - What China is doing is massive and measurable.

- For the last several years in a row, China installed more solar than the rest of the world combined and is on track to do the same again in 2025
- China's wind and solar capacity hit 1,400 GW in 2024, six years ahead of their 2030 target.
- China's carbon emissions dropped for the first time in 2025, not because of a recession—but because clean energy outpaced demand.
- China leads the world in solar panel manufacturing, wind turbine deployment, and EV adoption.
- Clean energy now drives 10% of China’s GDP, with $1.9 trillion in annual investment and sales.

If what China is doing is a "trick," it’s the most expensive, coordinated, and globally transformative sleight of hand in human history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Montreal protocol gave exceptions to China, India, and other developing countries. In fact, China and India took advantage of this exception to produce CFCs and then burn them to collect carbon credits from Europe.

China may be increasing renewables, but they are also increasing coal, when the goal is a 90% cut globally. Instead China and India are about 40% of emissions, and other countries outside of Europe and US are 30%.

Bogus talking points. The Montreal Protocol is still a success and net win. Yes, some developing countries like China and India received exemptions, but they were time-limited phasedown exceptions. And despite those early loopholes the Montreal Protocol still led to a 98.6% global phaseout of ozone-depleting substances.

Likewise, despite exemptions India cut its greenhouse gas output by 465 million tons of CO2 equivalent.

You'll have to post a credible citation proving that China and India "burned CFCs for carbon credits" - if there were any instances of that they were rare and/or unverified.

And yes, China and India are still burning coal, but that is not their longterm plan, it's to meet short-term need and they are still targeting carbon phaseout. It's no excuse whatsoever to fold arms, huff and throw in the towel. That's absolutely stupid, it's like quitting a marathon because the first mile was uphill. Bottom line is that even while the treaties aren't flawless, they have still delivered significant wins.

People are saying because Montreal was a win, so too with CO2. I am pointing out that under Montreal, China and India were exempted, therefore you can't use that as proof.
India has increased its CO2 emissions considerable, and is now higher than the entire EU.

China and India got a temporary, phased CFC exemption that expired under Montreal. That is what was also proposed for carbon. NOT a permanent exemption. It worked for Montreal, it can also work for GHGs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- Claims that eliminating vehicle GHGs wouldn't impact climate change, ignoring the fact that transportation is the largest U.S. emissions source.

It is called GLOBAL warming. US transportation is not the largest global emissions source. It probably isn't the largest US source either, but they have switched a lot of power plants away from coal.

Meanwhile China is embracing EVs and solar and 2000s technologies while Trump has us propping up 1900s fossil fuel technologies.

China loves it when other countries pass restrictions on CO2 emissions, and will play along to make it happen.

China's efforts are working. Their CO2 emissions are starting to level off.

Meanwhile for all the casting of China as the bad guys, the US still produces more CO2 than China.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zeldin's lies exposed:

https://evworld.com/article.php?id=250&slug=the-us-epa-chiefs-lie-what-it-means-for-americans-automakers-evs

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/7/29/2335801/-Here-s-how-Trump-s-crappy-EPA-chief-is-lying-to-you-now

DailyKossack?

LOLOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zeldin's lies exposed:

https://evworld.com/article.php?id=250&slug=the-us-epa-chiefs-lie-what-it-means-for-americans-automakers-evs

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/7/29/2335801/-Here-s-how-Trump-s-crappy-EPA-chief-is-lying-to-you-now

DailyKossack?

LOLOL

Whine all you like but can you prove them wrong? Nope. Of course you can't. Climate deniers are just pathetic, delusional clowns with an exaggerated and hugely mistaken sense of grandeur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- Claims that eliminating vehicle GHGs wouldn't impact climate change, ignoring the fact that transportation is the largest U.S. emissions source.

It is called GLOBAL warming. US transportation is not the largest global emissions source. It probably isn't the largest US source either, but they have switched a lot of power plants away from coal.

Meanwhile China is embracing EVs and solar and 2000s technologies while Trump has us propping up 1900s fossil fuel technologies.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=~CHN

The question is, is it the case that China is lying about its intentions to trick rubes like you, or are people like you pretending to believe China's lies to try and trick rubes like me into adopting your statist plans?

It's no "trick for the rubes" - What China is doing is massive and measurable.

- For the last several years in a row, China installed more solar than the rest of the world combined and is on track to do the same again in 2025
- China's wind and solar capacity hit 1,400 GW in 2024, six years ahead of their 2030 target.
- China's carbon emissions dropped for the first time in 2025, not because of a recession—but because clean energy outpaced demand.
- China leads the world in solar panel manufacturing, wind turbine deployment, and EV adoption.
- Clean energy now drives 10% of China’s GDP, with $1.9 trillion in annual investment and sales.

If what China is doing is a "trick," it’s the most expensive, coordinated, and globally transformative sleight of hand in human history.

If it's a "trick" they are doing a hell of a job with it and are putting our efforts at energy independence to shame.