Recent Comments

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Comments 1 to 50:

1. Eric (skeptic) at 21:59 PM on 26 February 2026
   After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
   

   Bob @8, when I first read the last sentence of the article I thought they were lamenting the need for states and Congress to do something.   Upon rereading perhaps they are considering that as a good option as I do.  As you saw, Roberts bascially says that issues like global climate stability are not juisticiable.  He says Mass has no standing as they cannot show a justiciable (physically consequential) connection from lack of EPA vehicle regulation to their coastline.

   Your conclusion "That seems to represent an opinion that the tragedy of the commons is fine with him [Roberts]" is correct.  That was basically the reason for the Clean Air Act: pollution in Ohio causing acid rain in New York.  Thus the remedy for tragedy of the commons is legislation, not a pretense of justiciability.  Keeping 2007 as precedent?  That means more special solicitude for environmental cases with courts wading even further into scientific questions.  

   My wording was inexact, I should have said: "numeric standards for CO2 emissions".  Texas (e.g.) will point out the current economic benefits of their higher emissions. Massachusetts will argue for future global benefits of their ongoing energy transition.  Since both of those numbers are rather small, they will probably settle on a 2050 numeric standard approach and put some more money into transition.  Maybe 2040 since 2030 is too close at hand.  I would propose R&D money and let the emissions standards decrease more gradually.

   I realize the consensus here is against gradual approaches.  We'll never agree on that.

2. prove we are smart at 13:26 PM on 26 February 2026
   Fossil fuel pollution’s effect on oceans comes with huge costs
   

   "The Trump EPA buries its head in the eroding sand". I will argue the Trump admin has its head up and looking around to take many more "donations" from any billionaires wanting to pay for an advantage.

   Its not limited to only one party either, www.youtube.com/shorts/qzYTN4lfEn4

   Coral reefs are ecosystems whose collapse signals that multiple planetary boundaries are being exceeded simultaneously. All are under worstening die-back, some disapearing faster, today, some corals survive in much warmer waters in the Red Sea than on the Great Barrier Reef. The concern is therefore not strictly the temperature but the pace at which the temperature is rising above what corals in specific regions have adapted to over longer time periods.

   The current rate of environmental change, and dramatic increase in the frequency of bleaching events in 2016, 2017, 2020, 2022, 2024 and 2025 (before then mass bleaching occurred in 2002 and 1998), raise concerns that most reef-building coral will not be able to adapt fast enough.

   Our Australian summary. www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJRBYPhKnXA&t=1s

   Really, the only glimmer of hope I have for the USA is how the citizens of New York, rejected corporate politics and elected a self proclaimed democratic socialist. I can naively wish.

3. nigelj at 12:31 PM on 26 February 2026
   Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
   

   Bob Loblaw @ 02:00 AM on 26 February, 2026

   BL: "What you describe for building codes is similar to what we have in Canada"

   I have a vague recollection NZ actually modeled its building code on a combination of Canadas and Americas. Prior to about 1992 NZ didn't have a national building code as such. Local city councils had their own sets of rules on how houses had to be constructed. They did use the NZ standards which had been around for ages, and were effectively a national set of guidelines. But the net result is every city had its own building rules and they were all a bit different and confusing and they were very prescriptive.

   In 1992 the government adopted a national building code with more of a performance based approach. Councils could not set local rules except in very limited circumstances. Its all been good but with some problems as well.

   BL: "I had to get two permits and deal with two inspection processes: electrical, and everything else."

   In NZ local city councils check drawings and issue building consents, and do all inspections including electrical. We are too small for regions. I think the sign off process has altered recently, I've lost track a bit.

   BL: "When you say "signed off by Governments Cabinet", I assume that you mean the collection of ministers appointed by the Prime Minister (PM) to run the different government departments. (NZ is like Canada - following the Westminster system. We have an elected House of Commons, and an appointed Senate. It looks like you only have an elected house?)In practice, many decisions made within our government require sign-off by the Minister, but I don't think there are many (if any) that require sign-off by cabinet."

   Yes we have the Westminster system. To be honest I'm not 100% sure whether something like a building code needs sign off by a minister or all of cabinet. I'm fairly sure some things need sign of by all of cabinet.

   BL: "Some politicians and voters that disagree with government actions are convinced that the entire public service consists of partisan hacks working for the other political party......We're wandering much off-topic here, but to tie this back into the OP and what is happening in the US and the EPA, the US is devolving into a situation where large swaths of the "public" service are becoming political service."

   I've only seen a very few people in NZ suggest the public service are partisan hacks. Generally appointments appear to be on merit. We certainly haven't had a leader like Trump making blatantly partisan appointments. But right now it would not be possible. The heads of public service departments are appointed by the Public Service Commissioner and his office. he PSC is appointed by the Governor General. NZ is still technically a monarchy. Politicians are consulted on appointments, but don't decide the appointments.

   The problem is some of our conservative and right leaning politicians clearly admire some of what Trump has done. They don't embrace Trump like your conservative and right leaning politicians, but there is some leaning towards him particularly with Winston Peters of NZ First. But fortunately they would have a hell of a difficult job changing the system to allow them to make partisan appointments to the PS.

   The thing with Trump is all he has to do is get personal control of the police and army by getting their loyalty, and he can do anything. I honestly think he's trying to do that, and ICE is the first move in that direction. Hopefully he's out of office before he can do this. Ok all getting a tad off topic. But Trump has such monumental influence I think its worth some discussion. I had decided to ignore reading about him in his second term, but hes inescapable. Agree with your views on him and his presidency.

4. Bob Loblaw at 11:50 AM on 26 February 2026
   After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
   

   OPOF:

   Our paths must have come close to crossing. I worked in an engineering consulting company in Calgary in 1981-82. Through the peak of the boom you talk about, and into the bust that happened in 1982. The company I worked for shed many employees in those last few months. Many (like me) had moved to Calgary for the work opportunities, but as they lost their jobs in late 1982 they could not sell their houses for what they owed the bank. Not because they were poor employees or incapable or unmotivated - just simply because world events dealt them a losing poker hand.

   I was fortunate in the sense that I found opportunities elsewhere before the axe fell on me. The company I had worked for went bankrupt a few years later and the remnants merged with a more successful company. I think the original name has disappeared into the history books, as a result of further mergers and takeovers.

5. One Planet Only Forever at 07:49 AM on 26 February 2026
   After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
   

   Bob Loblaw @11,

   That is a good story to share.

   One of my favourite examples to share about 'being fortunate - lucky' is that I graduated from University when things were booming in Alberta as a result of the late 1970s global energy crisis (record high oil prices in 1980). As a result, I was able to prove my abilities for several years before global events temporarily ruined the global oil industry (oil prices dropping significantly by 1986). I was always employed at a good salary level until I retired. Many people who graduated after I did struggled to have steady high paying employment. It wasn't that they were less intelligent, less capable, or less motivated. It was simply the timing of their graduation from University.

6. Bob Loblaw at 02:00 AM on 26 February 2026
   Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
   

   nigel @ 28:

   What you describe for building codes is similar to what we have in Canada (where OPOF and I both live, albeit in different provinces). We develop national building codes, but provinces are the ones that control building practises, so they will make their own codes. They usually follow the national codes, but may adapt them to local circumstances.

   To further devolve responsibility, provinces usually transfer the process of inspection, approval of plans, etc. down to the municipal level (cities, regions, etc.) Thus, it is local government that will have people that examine and approve plans, issue building permits, perform inspections, etc. In my province, electrical inspections are handled by a province-wide agency, but plumbing (including HVAC) and structural inspections are by the city. So, when I wanted to finish my basement, I had to get two permits and deal with two inspection processes: electrical, and everything else.

   When you say "signed off by Governments Cabinet", I assume that you mean the collection of ministers appointed by the Prime Minister (PM) to run the different government departments. (NZ is like Canada - following the Westminster system. We have an elected House of Commons, and an appointed Senate. It looks like you only have an elected house?)

   In practice, many decisions made within our government require sign-off by the Minister, but I don't think there are many (if any) that require sign-off by cabinet. As I mentioned in earlier comments, at this point a Minister is acting as a member of the Executive branch, using powers and authority granted to ministers by Parliament - i.e. acting according to law. If a Minister wants to do something that is outside their authority, they'd have to take it to cabinet and the PM and argue that it needs to be taken before Parliament and a new law passed. A common example of "not your authority" would be when a minister wants to do something that law says is the responsibility of a different department - or perhaps a provincial responsibility according to our Constitution.

   Within our system, deputy ministers (DM) are the ones that run the day-to-day operation of the department. These appointments are at the will of the politicians (minister, cabinet, PM) and can (and will) be changed as political winds change. As you move down through the bureaucracy to assistant deputy ministers (ADM; there will be several in a department, responsible for different branches), directors general (DG), directors, managers, etc. At each lower level, there will be more people at that level, responsible for smaller parts of the system. At each level, their authority is limited to what the Minister delegates to that level, which is largely controlled by the rules set in place by Parliament (AKA "the law").

   Only the few at the top are political appointees, though. ADMs, DGs, etc are expected to be non-partisan, merit-based appointments. Most will survive a change in government, as the political masters at the top accept that these people will give non-partisan advice (although the major job description remains "don't embarrass the minister").

   Things fail (and there is worry about this) when political motives spread downwards into the "non-partisan" public service. Some politicians and voters that disagree with government actions are convinced that the entire public service consists of partisan hacks working for the other political party. (Some believe that the public service does nothing, and they should all be fired.) As distrust grows, and more and more appointees are selected based on political motives, the harder it is to get "expert advice".

   We're wandering much off-topic here, but to tie this back into the OP and what is happening in the US and the EPA, the US is devolving into a situation where large swaths of the "public" service are becoming political service. The US cabinet is not elected - it is appointed by the president. In theory, Congress needs to approve these, but more and more confirmation votes go entirely down party lines. The president wants the authority to fire many employees in the public service, and has shown a propensity to replace them with political hacks. He wants them to swear an oath of allegiance to the president, not the constitution. He does not want the rule of law to constrain him, and he does not want a "public" service that serves the people or the law. IMHO, this is not a happy place to be.

   The question of "who gets to sign off on the regulations?" is only one very small part of "who gets to decide the process by which the regulations are developed?" To me, the elected officials are already in control of defining the process. If they don't like the outcome, they can re-define the process, but turning final decisions into a political football that can ignore any sort of reasonable process is not a good way to go.

7. John Hartz at 10:24 AM on 25 February 2026
   After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
   

   As documented in the two articles cited below, the Supreme Court will hear two critical cases re society's ability to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the damage it has done by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We all will definitely want to closely track developments in these two cases as they occur.

   Supreme Court to Decide Key Issue in Fate of State and City Suits Against Oil Companies Over Climate Change The nation’s highest court has agreed to hear a case that raises questions about climate lawsuits across the country and amplifies concerns about the participation of Justice Samuel Alito, who holds significant fossil fuel investments. by Lee Lee Hedgepeth, Inside Climate News, Feb 23, 2026

   Excerpt:

   "The Supreme Court has previously resisted efforts to have the justices weigh in on climate litigation playing out across the country, but its announcement that it will hear the Colorado case signals a shift in that hands-off approach.

   This is not the only climate litigation on the court’s docket. In January, justices heard arguments on whether the court should overturn a landmark, $745 million jury verdict against Chevron, which Louisiana jurors found had contributed to the decline of the state’s shoreline and wetlands. That case is still pending, with a decision expected sometime before the court’s summer recess. "

   To access the entire article, go to:

   https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23022026/supreme-court-looks-at-state-city-oil-climate-lawsuits/

   ______________________________________________________________________

   How Trump’s big climate finding repeal could actually hurt big oil Without federal climate regulation, fossil fuel industry may be more vulnerable to local lawsuits by Dharna Noor, The Guardian, Feb 24, 2026

   Excerpt:

   "The Trump administration’s repeal of a foundational climate determination could clear a path for new litigation and policies targeting big oil, legal experts say.

   Earlier this month, Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule revoking the “endangerment finding”, a 2009 determination that established that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The move eliminated federal limits on climate-warming emissions from motor vehicles, and is expected to extend to all other pollution sources.

   Critics say the change was designed to reward oil companies, which poured record sums into Trump’s campaign. Ironically, it could also weaken a shield the fossil fuel industry has used against attempts to make it pay climate damages around the US.

   The future of that legal shield will soon face a major test as the supreme court considers a fossil fuel industry petition to quash a climate lawsuit filed by a Colorado city."

   To access the entire article, go to:

   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/24/trump-climate-endangerment-repeal-oil-lawsuits

8. nigelj at 07:20 AM on 25 February 2026
   Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
   

   OPOF @26 talks about how structural design codes are formulated. In New Zealand we have a building code which deals with structure, waterproofing, plumbing etc,etc. Its focused on issues of safety and durability only not aesthetics etc,etc. Its essentially a set of regulations on what you can, and cant do.

   The building code is prepared by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) . The building code sets objectives and performance criteria. The code allows for acceptable solutions to these criteria and objectives. These can be provided in different ways. One way is for an engineer or other expert to do a design from first principles and submit this to a local government council for approval by their technical people.

   Another way is to base the design on prescriptive rules contained in the NZ Standards. Standards New Zealand are part of MBIE. Standards are written by technical committees of engineers, industry experts, councils, and other stakeholders. So there is industry input which is a little bit worrying but theres also something to be said by getting all stakeholders involved and this is a consultation issue. MBIE don't have to do what industry want.

   The final building code is signed off by the Governments Cabinet. Which is essentially an executive body. It is not signed off by Parliament. We have a Building ACT which is quite general in nature, and voted on in parliament. The ACT ultimately requires a detailed building code.

   If people hate what the government is doing with the building code they can of course elect another government.

   Not wanting to restart my comments on the regulations related to the CO2 issue, but its just the huge implications of this issue that made me wonder if some sort of sign off of regulations should be done by parliament / congress. The Republicans talk about the major questions doctrine. But I can certainly see the arguments against all this and I dont have a firm view either way on the issue. One thing I think we all agree on and have firm views on is the details have to be left to the experts.

   Given the endangerment finding is in considerable danger, fortunately with the climate change issue there are other ways to regulations of mitigating the problem such as carbon taxes, cap and trade and subsidies. I've always thought the regulatory approach to mitigate the climate problem,  would become a complicated nightmare, and bogged down in arguments about who gets to sign off the regulations. 

9. Bob Loblaw at 06:50 AM on 25 February 2026
   After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
   

   OPOF: "every poor person does not deserve their fate."

   I am going to tell a story I find myself telling more and more often these days.

   In 1968, my father travelled back to Saskatchewan (western Canada) for his father's funeral. My father, born in 1920, had grown up in rural Saskatchewan through the Great Depression. My grandfather was one of the lucky ones, having a job running the town grain elevator through the 1930s.

   At the funeral, a woman that had grown up in the same town in the same years came up to my father and said "Our family always looked up to your father so much. Back in the '30s, when our father was out of work, he knew that at the most desperate times he could go to your father, who would find him some work to do at the elevator to earn a dollar or two. It meant so much to us."

   My father said that he realized that this woman (and her family) never knew one important thing: the company that ran the elevator had no money in the 1930s to hire casual labour. That dollar or two came from my grandfather's pocket, who knew that he was lucky and that her father was just down on his luck (like many, many others in the 1930s).

   Also important: my grandfather found a way to give that money to a neighbour in a way that the neighbour could keep his honour and dignity: he was able to work for the money, and it was coming from "the company" - not a handout/charity from my grandfather.

   I'd like to think that some of my grandfather's values have been passed down through my father to me.

10. One Planet Only Forever at 06:04 AM on 25 February 2026
    After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
    

    Re Bob Loblaw's comment @9 and the related comments preceding it:

    George Soros is evidence that not all billionaires are harmful sociopaths. And the many billionaires participating in misleading marketing attacks on George Soros are evidence that many billionaires are harmful sociopaths.

    In addition to the 'hard to justify' belief that every billionaire deserves to be so rich compared to Others, it is fairly obvious that every poor person does not deserve their fate.

    In addition to the books mentioned by Bob Loblaw, check out Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo's 2019 book "Good Economics for Hard Times" (Wikipedia link). For the benefit of those who have not heard of this pair of authors, the Wikipedia page mentions that just prior to publishing this book they were "... jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, shared with Harvard University professor Michael Kremer"

11. Bob Loblaw at 05:36 AM on 25 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    OPOF @26:

    You often talk in terms of "harm to others" and personality types that do (or do not) see that as something that should not be allowed. I'm sure that some react to your writings as "he wants to control things that others do" - sort of a "he wants the world structured his way" kind of dominance.

    ...but in this post, as I read it, I see your position as one where nobody has the right to force harm on others. As such, I see it as a call to Freedom - each person needs to be free from others causing them harm.

    Although you talk of not wanting power by "popularity contest" or "popular opinion", I do not see your post as being a call against democracy. I see it as a recognition that even those in the minority have rights. We cannot allow "the tyranny of the majority".

    Many countries have some sort of charter of rights built into their laws or constitution - often based on the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 1 states:

    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    This encompasses your frequent call to not cause "harm to others". By saying "all human beings", the UN declaration is meant to apply to each individual human being, even if a minority of one. I can't infringe on their rights. My gang can't infringe on their rights. My government can't infringe on their rights. My elected representatives can't infringe on their rights.

    I like your example of structural design and building codes. I am not an engineer, but I have worked with many. For a while I also worked along side people that were responsible for updating and maintaining weather-related data for building designs - things like roof snow loads, precipitation records for building and road design, etc.

    These are rules that must be followed ("regulations", in a way), and carry with them a significant cost factor. But the codes did not need approval of politicians. The people I knew sat in on the committees that developed the codes. Industry participated, but did not have final say. Code did not tell industry "this is how you have to build a roof", but it did say "you need to make it this strong". Industry is then free to be creative in how they design a roof - but within the limits of code.

    I agree with how you describe the role of elected representatives: assuring that there is a robust, rigorous decision-making process where all affected voices may be heard (usually called "stakeholders"), but there is a priority on finding a balanced solution that respects the needs of all. You'll never please everyone, but if the displeasure is limited to a few highly selfish individuals or groups. then I think it can be discounted. The argument "that will cost too much; I don't care who dies if it collapses after the final cheque clears" should not be tolerated. There is no fundamental right to even greater profit that overshadows someone else's right to life.

    Nigel has indicated that he wants to conclude our back-and-forth, so I won't beat that horse any more. (Even that horse has rights...) I will point out that the same issues OPOF raises in terms of building codes, etc. apply to pollution levels, etc. Much of the devil is in the details. As OPOF points out, unless you have a very clear understanding of the problem, the "fix" you put into place is destined to failure. An essential part of the "fix" is to make sure that the process of developing regulations is well controlled, rather than just the result.

12. One Planet Only Forever at 04:10 AM on 25 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    I wish to add to my comment @15. It relates to the interesting discussion between nigelj and Bob Loblaw. It is in response to nigelj @17 comment that “… its up to the public to decide who they give power to.”

    Like Bob Loblaw states @16, “I don’t have a fix.” But, as an Engineer, I appreciate that figuring out how to solve a challenge starts with developing a robust understanding of the challenge. Without a thorough robust understanding of a ‘problem needing to be fixed’ it is likely that what is believed to be a fix is likely to fail. That can be understood to mean that pursuits of personal interest that are not governed by the pursuit of learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others are likely to result in dangerous harmful misunderstandings being popular.

    It is important to understand that issues where there is potential harm to Others cannot be allowed to be ‘decided by power obtained through a popularity contest’, even if the matter is a major public interest issue. It can be argued that the more potential for harm to Others the more important it is that the decisions not be ‘governed by popular opinion’. A related point would be that when there is the potential for ‘harm to Others beyond a reasonable doubt’ the legal system should block the potentially harmful actions until a more rigorous understanding is developed regarding the harm. And it is equally important to understand that ‘it is not harmful to curtail or limit the obtaining of economic benefit from harmful and potentially harmful actions’.

    A clear example of this is the adequacy of structure designs. The adequacy of the designs should not be determined by popularly elected representatives. Elected representatives do need to ‘legislate building codes and material design codes’ to ensure a legal motivation for ‘safe design’. But, in addition to being the originators of the detailed content of those legislated rules of law, responsible engineers should ‘self-govern that way’, including constantly improving the detailed understanding and presentation of the codes and standards. Also, if the structural engineering community becomes aware that some existing structures are more dangerous than they should be (because of a harmful misunderstanding or lack of awareness during design and construction or deterioration of condition over time) then those structures should have their use limited, including termination of use, until the problem is effectively understood and corrected.

    Specialists in the design of safe structures and experts in each of the many potential types of materials (Steel, Concrete, Wood, Aluminum, ...) need to be relied upon to develop adequate design codes and standards without influence from elected representatives (popularity driven) or industry representatives (profit driven). It would be harmful to allow proponents of one type of building system or material to influence the requirements for competing alternative systems and materials. As an example, Steel proponents should not influence the requirements for Concrete design, and vice versa. And both the steel and Concrete design requirements should produce comparably safe results.

    Competition for benefit can tempt people away from being helpful Type 1) people. It encourages people to be more harmful Type 2) people. Obviously, it can be very damaging when competitors for benefit, status, profit and popularity are allowed to influence what is allowed to be gotten away with.

    Elected representatives need to be excluded from having influence on the details, including in high level significant legal requirements like Building Codes and questions of pollution. The role of the elected representatives should be restricted to ensuring that a robust rigorous effort isolated from political, popularity or profit motive influence is performed by experts who have a proven history of dedication to learning what is harmful in order to limit harm done and be more helpful to Others – experts who will produce sustainable and constantly improving developments for the future of humanity.

    As I said at the beginning of this comment. ‘I do not have a fix’. But I think the problem is the reluctance of people to understand the ‘inevitable significant harm that will be produced by poorly governed competition for popularity, profit and status’. Democracy and capitalism can easily devolve into authoritarian tyrannical plutocracy.

13. Bob Loblaw at 01:34 AM on 25 February 2026
    After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
    

    prove @ 7:

    I would generally be of the opinion that not all billionaires are sociopaths, but clearly some are. It is an open question as to whether the proportion of sociopaths in the billionaires' club is more than, equal to, or less than the proportion in the general population. But only a few is enough to be a problem in a political system running on billionaires' dollars.

    There is a strong sense that many in that club think they are there because they deserve it. (The billionaires' club, not the sociopaths' club.) Nothing to do with luck, birthright, unethical behaviour, or anything like that.

    Meyer's Dark Money, and Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century make for interesting reading. Meyer for a look into how billionaires are getting their hooks into the political system. Piketty for a look into how income and wealth inequality have changed over the past century or so, and the direction it is taking today.

14. Bob Loblaw at 01:18 AM on 25 February 2026
    After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
    

    Eric @ 6:

    I'm not sure exactly which "conclusion is basically backwards". I'm not even sure if you're responding to someone else's comment, or the OP itself. Can  you be more specific?

    You link to the 2007 decision. I've had a quick look. It is rather long. Is there a specific part that you think is particularly important?

    One thing that Roberts says in his dissent is that CO2 is basically a global issue. In the early part of that decision, it says "Roberts pointed out that much of the impetus behind global warming comes from foreign nations that have no environmental regulations." That seems to represent an opinion that the tragedy of the commons is fine with him.

    • How would your proposed "numeric standards for CO2" work? Local CO2 values can vary quite a bit depending on local emissions, local sinks, weather, season, etc. Away from local effects (e.g. Mauna Loa), levels are broadly global, and individual states can't do much. Putting a limit on raw CO2 level seems impractical.
    • If you are thinking of regulating emission quantities, how do allowable limits get set across states, industries, etc?
    • The Roberts dissent (from only a quick glance) seems to hinge on "courts don't belong here", with a healthy dose of "doubt is our product". I think you're correct that they don't want to put "doubt is our product" in writing too obviously.
    • I think the current court has made it pretty clear in decisions over the past few years that precedent is not a strong legal position in any case.
15. prove we are smart at 20:47 PM on 24 February 2026
    After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
    

    Just a reminder, just 1 billion is a 1000 million. The global billionaire population has continued to grow, reaching around 3,030 individuals in 2026, representing a 5% increase from the previous year.

    Billionaires emit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average person does in a lifetime. www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime?utm_source=copilot.com .

    From 5  "But remember not all powerful elites dont care. Plenty of billionaires accept the climate science and do some things to help improve the situation. I'm not sure scapegoating them for the problem helps very much."  Here is a start to help fix the problem of billionairs www.youtube.com/shorts/EybsPFDSWyU

16. Eric (skeptic) at 18:59 PM on 24 February 2026
    After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
    

    The conclusion is basically backwards.  The best case is for states to experiment with solutions and have Congress write laws to set numeric standards for CO2 just like they did for CO.  The worse case is to go to the Supreme Court and watch them rule 6-3 against the same thing they ruled 5-4 for in 2007.  It's pretty simple: decisions based on policy, or even worse, science, do not create strong legal precedent.  Please read the Roberts 2007 dissent that I will again link here: Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

    If the USSC decides a similar case, a 6-3 decision will hinge on Roberts 2007 logic both in deference to the legal issues and to Roberts himself.  The three liberal justices will maintain the Stevens argument and argue it's even more crucial today.  The other six may secretly harbor Scalia's merchandizing of doubt, but won't put that in writing.

    How will Congress pass those laws?  Good question, a simple majority in the House is inevitable thanks to my state of Virginia gerrymandering and anti-Trump sentiment.  60 votes can be purchased in the Senate by sending enough money to farmers regardless of party control.

17. nigelj at 11:52 AM on 24 February 2026
    After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
    

    pwas: "Thanks for that link JH, it descibes the dire,existential situation this wretched leader and his morally compromised party,enablers and administration are willing to put society into.You have to ask why? They have kids, grandkids-immediate close family and friends too."

    You almost answered your own question in your first post: “The real conspiracy is that the rich think that they don't have to live in the same world as the rest of us....." Its not just that the rich may think they are above the law.The rich probably think they can buy their way out of the consequences of climate change and other environmental problems. And they will leave plenty of money to the grand kids. And to a large extent they can.

    I think its a corruption of wealth thing. I am  financially rather secure so climate change wont hurt me too much, but I dont like that it will hurt large parts of the world and the low income people. But if I was super rich I can imagine I might become so confident climate change can't affect me at all, and I might become so self entitled and detached from the real world, I stop caring about the ordinary folks. None of us are completely immune to the effects of huge wealth and power.

    But remember not all powerful elites dont care.  Plenty of billionaires accept the climate science and do some things to help improve the situation. I'm not sure scapegoating them for the problem helps very much.

18. nigelj at 11:27 AM on 24 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Bob, I do acknowledge it would be difficult apportioning which pollutant decisions require legislative approval and which could be completely left to the EPA to do its thing. So you get the last say with your previous comment. I'm out of energy for any more anyway.

    Trumps deep distrust of science might be psychological projection. Hes so incredibly dishonest himself he assumes everyone else is. 

    The effects of his presidency on American science look quite crippling. Last months Economist Journal has a good article on the issue. I dont have a link because I buy the paper version for the coffee table.

19. prove we are smart at 06:25 AM on 24 February 2026
    After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
    

    Thanks for that link JH,it descibes the dire,existential situation this wretched leader and his morally compromised party,enablers and administration are willing to put society into.

    You have to ask why? They have kids, grandkids-immediate close family and friends too. The lifestyle of so many of us is over in its current form as more planetary boundaries collapse under the shadow of the human polluting green house gases ever increasing. 

    You have to think the powerful elites feel distanced and immune from the worlds common folks issues but greed and power must also blind. 

20. John Hartz at 02:49 AM on 24 February 2026
    After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
    

    Recommended supplenmetal reading:

    The reckless repeal of the Endangerment Finding, Opinion by John Holdren*, Union of Concerned Scientists, Feb 19, 2026

    *Dr. Holdren is Teresa and John Heinz Research Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and Faculty Co-Chair of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy program in the School’s Belfer Cener for Science and International Affairs. From 2009 to 2017, he was the Science Advisor to President Obama and Senate-confirmed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

    Excerpt:
    "The 2009 finding by the EPA that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare—the Endangerment Finding—is the legal basis for the EPA to regulate those emissions; last week, the Trump administration rescinded the finding. If the recission survives the inevitable legal challenges, it will lead to the EPA dismantling essentially all of its regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions, most notably those from cars and trucks as well as from power plants and other stationary sources."

    Holden pulls no punches in this article To access the entire opinion piece, go to:

    https://thebulletin.org/2026/02/the-reckless-repeal-of-the-endangerment-finding/

21. Bob Loblaw at 01:13 AM on 24 February 2026
    After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
    

    There is a fourth option: repeal or modify the Clean Air Act and/or the act that created the EPA (assuming it is different).

    ...but that would require putting their true intent front and centre, where voters can see it. And they'd need enough votes in both the House and the Senate, where the politicians need to think if that will affect getting re-elected. Better to do it by stealth, where you leave the laws intact and just try to choke the $%^# out of it. By the time the courts intervene, you'll need a nuclear power plant to power the AED that you'd need to resuscitate action.

22. Bob Loblaw at 01:02 AM on 24 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    nigel:

    First, I didn't find the term "elected politicians" confusing. It's just that I'd forgotten you had added "elected" within the meat of the text, and I was in the mind set where a lot of "politicians" are outside the small set that are actually holding elected office.

    The problem I see with your "let the legislature vote" aspect is that it seems completely impractical to me. The legislature can only vote on matters that the constitution allows. (Well, they can vote on other things, but then the judicial system is supposed to void that vote when someone challenges it in court.) Once the legislature votes, that vote becomes law. Saying "let the legislature vote" is basically saying "to do this, we need a new law".

    The problem is that it seems highly unlikely that you can design any effective process where it becomes easy to identify that a particular pollutant (in this case) is one that is important enough to require that legislative approval. Any simple metric will fail, in my mind. How does environmental damage show up  in GDP? And then you need to codify that into law ("legislature votes").

    The Canadian legislation that I am familiar with requires that costs, impact on different sectors of the economy, etc. are all considered when proposing regulations. There are always trade-offs. The example that I am most familiar with is the banning of ozone-depleting CFCs. When the bans were implemented, exceptions were made for industries where there were no alternatives (or excessively-expensive ones).

    The "let the legislature vote" risks excessive micro-management. I have seen the effects on government efficiency when politicians decided that "responsible management" meant requiring authorization at higher and higher levels. Middle management becomes a relay service shuffling requests upstream and answers (if you get one) downstream. Decisions end up getting made by people at the top who are not at all familiar with the issues. (Yes, I would put many politicians into that class. They are limited in number, and even their collective knowledge cannot make them experts on everything.)

    A huge question is the issue of trust. If you can't trust the administrative branch to make a good decision, can you trust them to make a good recommendation? Can you trust them to do a thorough job in examining the issue and providing the politicians with a balanced summary? If you don't trust them, then what other sources of information can be used to enable the politicians to make an informed decision?

    [I suspect we agree that in the current US administration, the president doesn't trust anyone that questions him. And he doesn't trust science. And he doesn't trust anyone that he thinks "works for the Democrats", or "the deep state". We see in the recent EPA analysis just who they trust when it comes to climate science.]

    As for tracking the costs of regulations: that to me suggests the creation of a huge Rube Goldberg-like bureaucracy. Again, my government experience has exposed me to too may instances where the system is willing to spend thousands of dollars of  people's time to make sure that $100 was properly spent. I lived in a world of this XKCD comic:

    

23. prove we are smart at 16:10 PM on 23 February 2026
    After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?
    

    “The real conspiracy is that the rich think that they don't have to live in the same world as the rest of us, so they can let it burn and profit on the way down… These guys believe that they are above the rules. ”

    The elites just don't care about what is good or even legal. Roll back the climate regs to grift in petro bucks, genocide a nation for those enriched by the industrial military complex, invite other privileged persons to illegal immoral activities and no accountability because your corrupt lackies are in the admin. Justice, health, politics, media and others.

    The rollbacks occuring during this right-wing populous propaganda worldwide is money and power for all elites.

    That quote at the start is from a discussion by 2 of my favourite people talking about the big picture of why the system must change. The EPA roll-back gets a little mention, inequality breeds powerful people who will ruin the world-but only for us. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1k_mzzwnU

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Please try to dial back the tone a little bit.

24. nigelj at 11:42 AM on 23 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Bob Loblow @20

    BL: "You qualify that in your third paragraph by saying that the politicians should make the major decisions - but how do you decide what are the major decisions, and what decisions are not?........So, the law really needs to allow the executive branch to have some flexibility to look into "unknowns"."

    I'm suggesting that if a regulatory proposal is found to have a huge potential  impact on society like regulating CO2, the final determination of whether its a pollutant and needs regulations, and the final approval of such regulations should rest with the legislative branch by way of vote. Maybe the EPA should be required to apply a test, and it can do so at any stage the regulatory issue in the chain of assessment. Perhaps its possible to look at the likely impact of the regulation on the economy and say if its above level xyz it needs to go to the legislature. You could look at imapct on gdp or wages or whatever. It doesnt have to be something perfect , just enough to ensure the legislature gets the big issues to vote on, and not too many small issues to deal with.

    Perhaps look at the history of regulations going back a few decades and on the economic impacts and identify the costs of the 10% or 5%  of regulations with the greatest economic impacts and then this cost becomes the threshold  where any new regulations have to go to the legislature for final approval. That means the legislature aren't overburdened with too many to consider. 

    Even if things are left to the executive branch to figure out whether something is a pollutant, and they have the flexibility to look into unknowns, they can still be required to do the test I suggested, at some point in time when its appropriate.

    Sorry about my use of the term elected politicians. It was confusing.

25. Bob Loblaw at 05:46 AM on 23 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    nigel:

    Re-reading your comment 19, I see that are clearly using the phrase "elected politicians". It's not something I needed to assume, as I wrote in comment 20.

26. Bob Loblaw at 05:39 AM on 23 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Semi-on-topic (which translates to semi-off-topic...)

    I just read an article at CNN that discusses the recent USSC decision on Trump's tariffs. A major question (and source of disagreement between the majority and minority positions of the nine justices) has to do with something called the "major questions doctrine". This has to do with questions of whether vague laws can be interpreted to grant wide discretion and authority to the executive branch (in this case, the President), or whether the executive branch can only take on authority that is clearly granted. (Read the article - it does a better job of explaining it.)

    The reason I'm posting this here is because I think it is central to nigel's and my views on delegation of decision-making authority in the context of pollution controls. Two-thirds of the USSC seem to think that even the President is expected to only use authority granted to him by either the constitution or by the legislative branch (where the constitution has given them the authority in question).

    Food for thought when reading my previous comment about legislative vs executive branch decision-making.

27. Bob Loblaw at 03:20 AM on 23 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Nigel:

    Your second paragraph kind of contradicts itself. You say that the decisions on whether a chemical is an air pollutant should rest with the politicians, but you say you can't have politicians decide on every single chemical substance. [By "politicians", I am assuming that you mean "elected representatives".]

    You qualify that in your third paragraph by saying that the politicians should make the major decisions - but how do you decide what are the major decisions, and what decisions are not?

    The way that our democracies work (or not) is that the politicians (in the legislative branch) voice their decisions by enacting laws. Just as there are laws that control the actions of the general public, there are laws that control the actions of government. The legislators (politicians) are not allowed to contact the administration and tell them what to do. (Speaking from personal experience, if a Canadian politician wants to visit a federal government research site, he has to ask the Minister to arrange it.)

    On the executive side (the administration), absolutely everything that is done must be something that they are either commanded to do or allowed to do according to law. If a civil servant decides to do something (spend money, start a research program, set up an office), there has to be a clear track back to some sort of legislation that grants that authority to that civil servant (or to someone who can in turn delegate that authority to that individual). That civil servant is not allowed to decide completely on their own that they can spend government resources on something that the legislature has never, ever considered.

    To belabour the point further, let's go back to that "is this a pollutant or not?" question. Let's assume that no current legislation specifically identifies chemical X as a pollutant. This means that the politicians have not made any decision on it. Someone realizes that X has health implications. The government then says "hmmm. Maybe we should study that". Can they? Not if there is no legislation that gives them that authority. Should they need to wait for politicians to pass a law saying they can study it? A guaranteed way of making sure that nothing ever gets done.

    So, the law really needs to allow the executive branch to have some flexibility to look into "unknowns". The structure in government is that the more important the decision, the higher up the food chain it needs to go when decisions are made. The most obvious example is budgets. When in government, I had the authority to buy toilet paper when the buildings I looked after were running low. I did not have the authority to buy a new building when office space was running low.  I had decision-making authority over local toilet paper purchases. I did not need to ask the politicians.

    In Canada, ministers at the top of the executive branch food chain are also politicians, but they still keep those two hats separate. They can present laws to the legislature and get them passed, but as an executive, they are only allowed to command the ministry (executive branch) to do what the law allows. Their status as politicians does not change this. Any decisions they make may (will?) be done for political purposes, but a law still has to exist that gives them the authority to make that decision as a Minister.

    In the US, the secretary in charge of a department is usually not an elected politician. Any decisions they make are not being made by elected representatives (no matter how "political" that decision may be). Again, they should only make decisions on matters that legislation grants them the authority to make.

    To beat the drum of decision-making, the legislation that empowers anyone in this chain must clearly state what authorities are being delegated to what level, under what circumstances, and what sort of process must be followed in researching and making decisions (or recommendations). Saying that "the politicians [elected representatives] need to make this decision" basically means "this decision requires an Act of the legislative branch".

28. nigelj at 16:08 PM on 22 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Bob Loblow: "You can argue whether the Clean Air Act and other legislation gave too much discretion (or not enough) to the EPA, but the EPA is expected to act according to the directions it was given by legislation..."

    Yes thats precisely what I'm doing. I'm arguing the clean air act gives too much discretion to the EPA. For me the decisions on whether a chemical is an air pollutant and should thus be regulated should rest with elected politicians. At least in respect of substances where the implications would be huge like CO2. I accept you cant have politicians decide on every single chemical substance, as you say things would grind to a halt.

    As I already said  we elect politicians to make the major decisions, and surely what we do about CO2 is a major decision. The details of how regulations might be structured can of course be left to something like the EPA. Of course its really just my opinion so I wont labour the point further.

    And this looks like its part of the rationale that has  overtuned the endangerment finding, along with some sort of argument about the costs of the endangerment finding and regulating CO2 allegedly  exceeding the benefits (Im not sure the EPA have proven that by a long way.)

    Now I hope this overturning of the endangerment finding is challenged in court. The endangerment finding was the law, and even although I dont believe its the ideal sort of law to fight climate change, and was always at risk of coming unstuck, it was the law and it seemed to have reasonably wide public support. And it was helping promote EV's. On that basis its ok law in a democratic sense. And its better than nothing. Hope that doesn't sound  contradictory.

    The scientific community and lawyers did well undermining the CWG / DOE junk science report, on both the science and the lack of proper transparency of process. That had to be done for all sorts of reasons.

     

29. PollutionMonster at 12:53 PM on 22 February 2026
    Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
    

    "It can also be argued that nuclear power has a key role to play in meeting emissions targets (Brook, 2012) for mitigating climate change" Abott 2012

    The above quote shows that nuclear power can be arguged to help with emission targets.

    The weakness with peer reviewed articles is they are technical and difficult to understand. I have seen people claim many peer reviewed articles support their claims and the opposite be true. It is easy to misunderstand. 

    As for uranium and the blog, both you and them are quoting the same peer reviewed article and coming to different conclusions. Sks is a blog within itself. 

    Personally, I am confused, I don't know if there is enough uranimum or not and I am just trying to figure this out. As for the answer I desire, I want the answer to be renewables. I don't want to have to pay extra money for nuclear let alone the risk of a meltdown. I personally had to pay the highest price in the country from PECO energy because of nuclear. 

    Nuclear is not cost competitive according to this article.

    Nuclear too expensive to matter

30. Bob Loblaw at 11:50 AM on 22 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    nigel: you say "... then defer major decisions on what becomes law..."

    ...but as I explained earlier at least in the Canadian sense, is that the technocrats (I don't really like that term, but "executive branch" or "administrative branch" doesn't really cover it, either) don't make law writ large. They just apply the law to create rules and regulations in a manner clearly delegated by the elected legislative branch.

    It's not a case of "well, we're not going to deal with that; let's let the bureaucracy deal with it". It's more a case of "we've thought about it, and we've established the way we want it dealt with, but we will leave the details to the technocrats". The legislature is still responsible for what happens (you can't delegate responsibility), but the subordinate administration is given the authority (which you can delegate) to act.

    In the case of the endangerment finding, the earlier legislation (Clean Air Act) determined that the EPA was responsible for regulating air pollution that had detrimental effects on people or the environment. AFAIK, the original legislation did not list every chemical that was considered a pollutant - it left that as a determination for the EPA. Then came the question of whether CO2 needed to be included on that list, and after several levels of court cases, the USSC said "yes, the science says CO2 is an air pollutant, and the EPA must take steps to review it and regulate it if necessary". The recent EPA position is that it is not a pollutant that is causing any harm. (I'm sure that lawyers will make more money out of this.)

    So, it is not a case that the EPA decided that regulating air pollutants was something it needed to do - that decision was made in the legislative branch when the Clean Air Act was passed. The legislative branch delegated the authority to the EPA to determine what (or what not) is an air pollutant (with a little help from the courts).

    What I am sure will be the legal process moving forward is questions as to whether the current EPA decision actually followed all the legal obligations set out in various legislation. The EPA was not told via the Clean Air Act to  "do whatever  you want". The EPA was told "you can make some decisions, but this is the process you need to go through to make your decisions".

    In the case of last year's Climate Working Group (the gang of five that produced the hugely biased report), there were legal challenges in the works that took the EPA to task for ignoring the various aspects of the process that the various laws required. The EPA decided to withdraw the report and pretend it never happened - undoubtedly to try to avoid having their new decision challenged in court as a violation of process.

    You can argue whether the Clean Air Act and other legislation gave too much discretion (or not enough) to the EPA, but the EPA is expected to act according to the directions it was given by legislation. The cabinet member at the top of the executive branch (Minister in Canada, or the Secretary in the US) can guide how the bureaucracy works, but he or she does need to work within the framework specified in legislation.

    If you needed to get new legislation passed to decide if every new pollutant was indeed a pollutant, you'd never get anything done. (That's the current goal in the US, I think.) That's where delegating the decision to some form of expert review process provides flexibility.

31. nigelj at 09:16 AM on 22 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Bob Loblow @16, I must have missed that Dr Who episode ha ha. 

    I'm sure we ideally want decisions made by people with expertise in the subject area. We clearly need a whole lot of technocrats to decipher the issues and come up with recommended solutions. But that wasnt my point. Someone has to have the final say on whether a proposed regulation becomes law, so should it be the technocrats (which seemed to be the situation with the endangerment finding) or the politicians by way of voting on the regulation? You seem to be skirting around that. Or maybe I wasnt clear.

    I'm not inclined to push for elected judges. I'm happy with Judges appointed by politicians for long periods, providing we somehow minimise partisan bias in those selections. Not all processes in society have to involve democratic decision making and votes or elections. Judges work is not policy as you rightly say.

    But I  think that we  have a democracy where we elect politicians to come up with policies and decide on them, and to then defer major decisions on what becomes law to unelected government department technocrats seems undemocratic and at odds with electing politicians to make decisions, and so should be minimised. Even if it sometimes means politicians have to decipher complex technical arguments. Judges also have to do that. There doesn't seem to be an ideal solution.

    ---------------------------

    OPOF @15, I'm inclined to agree with your rationale, but its up to the public to decide who they give power to. Unfortunately they then go and elect someone like Trump.

32. Bob Loblaw at 08:35 AM on 22 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    nigel:

    I want to see decisions made by people with expertise in the subject area, who have sufficient background to understand a wide variety of issues related to the decision, and who have a track record of seeing some reasonable number of their predictions come to pass. And who have a track record of making decisions that are in the interest of a wide variety of people other than themselves and their close friends/business partners.

    ...but the trick is figuring out who those people are. In the case of a professional public service, one hopes that the hiring and promotion process is reasonably accurate in determining who has real expertise, and who has the best skills for collecting evidence, analyzing it, and interpreting it. And one hopes that management has enough knowledge and skill to be able to figure out who is worth listening to.

    One of my favorite Dr. Who quotes is one where he has flown the Tardis into the president's office, with security all over the room ready to shoot him and his friends. One lowly fellow says:

    Mr President, that man walked in here with a big blue box and three of his friends, and that's the man he walked past. One of them is worth listening to.

    Ultimately, the professional public service is still working for the politicians. Unlike academic research, the scientists I knew understood that the reason they were hired to do research was because government needed the knowledge they could bring to the table. All the "technocrat" work is guided by politicians through legislation and policy. It is not independent rule.

    Ultimately, the politicians need to know who they can get good advice from, and when to listen to it. If the politicians are not interested in good advice - only confirmation - then the people that elect them need to do a better job of choosing their politicians.

    Except that a lot of current politics does not involve trying to make sure that voters are well-informed on issues and can make good decisions. It is based on the ability to manipulate voters emotions, and stop them from learning and thinking about the issues. Holding referenda to decide things opens the door to huge amounts of emotive manipulation - both by politicians and other third parties.

    Here in Canada, some people want to see elected judges, under the argument that they don't want policy done by unelected people. Judges don't make policy, they interpret laws. Laws that were passed by elected politicians. Politicians are supposed to control the judicial system through legislation (and constitutional amendment, if needed), and the same goes for the executive branch that performs regulation. I want judges with legal training. I want regulation done by people with suitable scientific background. (I'll include the social sciences here.)

    I agree that current politics are badly influenced by money - especially in the US, where it seems to be a case of "one dollar, one vote". Too many of the people in power seem to be only interested in more power. Voters are just there to be manipulated and provide the illusion of democracy.

    ...and no, I don't have a fix.

33. One Planet Only Forever at 07:29 AM on 22 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    nigelj,

    A better question is Should decisions with the potential for harm to be done to Others be made by:

    Type 1) People who diligently and rigorously pursue learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others, and who will change their mind as they learn more.

    Type 2) People who want the freedom to Believe and Do as they Please.

    I would argue that Type 2 people need to be kept from influencing decision-making that potentially affects Others. They need responsible governing by Type 1 people to limit the harm done to Others.

34. One Planet Only Forever at 06:52 AM on 22 February 2026
    Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
    

    A followup to my comment @460,

    The US leadership-of-the-moment’s push to deploy massive amounts of small nuclear reactors without rigorous proof that it will be safe continues as described in the following report:

    US military airlifts small reactor as Trump pushes to quickly deploy nuclear power, reported in NPR, by Associated Press, Feb 21, 2028.

    This is an example of misleading marketing abused by gamblers (inventor/investors) who will try to harmfully maximize their benefit from potentially bad bets (or bad ideas). The harm will be discovered in the future (because the innovator is not required to rigorously investigate potential for harm). And it is likely that the promoters of the ‘innovation’ will obtain benefits that cannot be taken away from them in the future when the harm they benefited from causing becomes undeniable – like the fossil fuel climate impact issue.

    Selected quotes from the article:

    Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Undersecretary of Defense Michael Duffey, who traveled with the privately built reactor, hailed the Feb. 15 trip on a C-17 military aircraft as a breakthrough for U.S. efforts to fast-track commercial licensing for the microreactors, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reshape the country's energy landscape.
    ...
    Skeptics warn that nuclear energy poses risks and say microreactors may not be safe or feasible and have not proved they can meet demand for a reasonable price.

    Wright brushed those concerns aside as he touted progress on Trump's push for a quick escalation of nuclear power. Trump signed a series of executive orders last year that allow Wright to approve some advanced reactor designs and projects, taking authority away from the independent safety agency that has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades.
    ...
    The minivan-sized reactor transported by the military is one of at least three that will reach "criticality" — when a nuclear reaction can sustain an ongoing series of reactions — by July 4, as Trump has promised, Wright said.

    "That's speed, that's innovation, that's the start of a nuclear renaissance," he said.
    ...
    Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the transport flight — which included a throng of reporters, photographers and TV news crews — was little more than "a dog-and-pony show" that merely demonstrated the Pentagon's ability to ship a piece of heavy equipment.

    The flight "doesn't answer any questions about whether the project is feasible, economic, workable or safe — for the military and the public," Lyman said in an interview.

    Rapid scale-up to power AI data centres could see 1000s of these ‘potential disasters’ in operation by 2030. The expected global power demand for AI data centres by 2030 is over 1000 TWh. Assuming a 5 MW generator, like the one reported to have been shipped by the military on Feb 15, 2026, operates at full power 24 hrs a day every day it would produce 5 x 24 x 365 = 43,800 MWh = 0.0438 TWh. (Also note that a typical AI data centre requiring 100 MW would need twenty 5 MW generators).

    Poorly regulated, unrestricted, innovation in pursuit of personal benefit has a history of producing harmful results that Others have to deal with. New Nuclear appears to be rapidly becoming a New Future Disaster promoted by Master Misleading Marketers.

35. nigelj at 06:09 AM on 22 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Actually thinking about this some more the issue is really a choice between rule by politicians and rule by technocrats, and which is preferable. Amplifying this do we prefer 1) decision making by politicians or 2) leaving decisions up to unelected technocratic groups within government. We do the former with many things, for example politicians vote on spending bills and changes to criminal laws and on social policies etc,etc. We do the later with Reserve Banks where they are given total discretion to decide the official cash rate independent of politicians, because politicians literally cannot be trusted to make good decisions in that area. I'm not arguing against this with the cash rate, its virtually commonsense, but from a philosophical perspective I would argue democracy is ideally best, so politicians should decide on everything. because its the most democratic approach. Even better perhaps is public referenda.

    If there's regulatory capture of politicians lets minimise that by minimising the influence of money in politics. So on that basis ideally the endangerment finding should have been voted on by politicians. But coming back to my own comments it would be onerous for politicians to have to evaluate and vote on every little regulation so some of this has to be left to the discretion of technocrats as a practical sort of thing. Bobs right that they can be subject to regulatory capture as well but then you can minimise that.

    I'm not entirely comfortable with rule by technocrats, but I accept its needed in some cases.

36. michael sweet at 04:14 AM on 22 February 2026
    Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
    

    Pollution Monster,

    I do not think that you understand the quoted section of the paper correctly.  In that portion of the paper Abbott is arguing that breeder reactors will not be practical.  He points out that breeder reactors are even more complex and expensive than conventional reactors.  The  breeding of fuel does not make up for the extra complexity .  I note that there are currently no reactors running world wide that breed fuel.  Upthread RitchieB1234, a nuclear engineer, stated that the US Nuclear Reguatory Agency thinks breeders are not practical.

    Abbott says:

    "The World Nuclear Association (2011) conservatively projects 80 years of economically extractable uranium at the current rate of consumption using conventional reactors. The 2010 figure for installed nuclear capacity worldwide is 375 gigawatts. If this were to be scaled up to 15 terawatts, the 80-year uranium supply would last less than five years." my emphasis.

    After the ecconomical supply of uranium is extracted there is no remaining ore that is worth mining.  If nuclear generated 10% of All Power the uranium would run out in 50 years, way before the claimed life of the reactors.  Nuclear supporters hope that more uranium can be found.

    Think it through: if there was enough uranium, nuclear engineers would not be talking about extracting uranium from the ocean (which Abbott shows takes more energy than you get from the uranium) and extremely complex breeder reactors which are difficult to build and run.

    In addition, Abbott lists 9 other reasons why nuclear reactors cannot provide a significant amount of power.  Abbott does not even list that reactors take too long to build and are too expensive.  Nuclear supporters have never attempted to respond to these reasons.

    I note on your favored blog site that you are sympathetic to their unsupported arguments.  Abbott 2012 is a peer reviewed paper.  Your blog is written by someone who does not even understand the basic vocabulary of energy systems and appears to not know that proposed renewable systems provide All World Power.  Who seems like a more reliable source of information?

    Jacobson  et al 2022, linked above, describes a system to provide All World Power.  Electricity, heating, transportation, trucks, agriculture, industry and any other energy requiring activity.  Your blog discusses nuclear providing 20% of current electricity.  To be frank, that discussion was resolved in 2010.   If nuclear could provide 20% of current electricity in 2050 it would be less than 4% of the energy that Jacobson's system would provide. 

    In addition, nuclear energy does not add to renewable energy well.  A mostly renewable system requres backup that can provide more than 10% of daily power on the days it needs backup.  Most of the time there is extra power being stored for the occasional slow days.  Nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power to store for the slow days.

    Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.

37. PollutionMonster at 20:26 PM on 21 February 2026
    Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
    

    Thank you for continuing the discussion. I have read the previous comments. Let's talk about Abbott 2012. 

    "What this means is that the industry would only have to increase its mining costs by 30 percent in order to increase the amount of accessible uranium for fueling conventional nuclear reactors by sixtyfold" Abbott 2012

    If I understand correctly this means there is plenty of uranium. Sixtyfold would be more than enough uranium to get us through the next 50 years for a nuclear realist point of view about 20% of all electrcity.

38. Bob Loblaw at 01:57 AM on 21 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    nigel:

    "...leaving regulations to the technocrats within government agencies..." is not that easy. As usual, the devil is in the details.

    In your and my systems, handed down from our previous existence as British colonies, there is a blurring of lines between "executive" and "legislative" branches of government. Our Prime Ministers are not elected directly - they gain office through having the support (confidence) of Parliament. They are expected to have won seats in Parliament as MPs representing an individual riding. And their cabinet members are selected from the group of elected MPs, too. The PM and cabinet then become the ministers at the top of the executive branch. Thus, the executive branch is under the guidance of elected members of the governing party in Parliament. (In Canada, unelected senators also sometimes get appointed to cabinet, but it is rare. And you can be PM or in cabinet without a position in the house or senate, but it is expected that you attempt to win a seat ASAP.) Virtually all bills of substance are introduced by the governing party.

    That is in stark contrast to the US system, where the election of the head of the executive branch (the President) is independent of the elections of people to the House or Senate. And the president can pick his cabinet from anywhere (although appointments do need house and/or senate approval.) Bills can be presented by the president, by congress, or by senators.

    In either system, it is common for the executive branch to guide the development of legislation, but this connection is much stronger in a parliamentary system than it is in the US.  The most beneficial arrangement is when the executive branch has access to people with expertise in the relevant areas - in particular, access to professional civil servants that set aside political motivations when doing their jobs.

    In Canada, I am familiar with cases where the governing party had motivations to go in one direction, but professional civil servants were able to convince them of real problems if they carried through with their plans. And the politicians (cabinet members) listened to those professionals. This is not always the case, though. Some civil servants are more motivated to keep the minister happy, regardless of consequences. Problems develop when civil servants no longer perform a challenge function - when told to jump, they just ask "how high?". They are unwilling to stick their neck out and say "that's not a good idea".

    The current US administration has largely lost any challenge function at all. Senior administrative staff (maybe all staff) are expected to act in the political interests of their masters. We see this in who is placed in cabinet, the threats and firings of lower level staff, etc. The EPA decision in this OP is a prime example (as is the "report" that was prepared by the gang of five that questioned climate science in general). The executive branch is expected to ignore anything that goes against the White House political goals, and provide justification no matter how weak.

    The current US administration largely rejects any sort of expertise that goes against their goals. They don't want to listen to it, and they want to actively prevent anyone else from listening to it, too. As far as developing legislation is concerned, you get laws put in place that were developed by outside political interests such as the American Legislative Exchange Council.

    Administrative regulatory bodies can also be affected by regulatory capture. You need these things to be set up to get broad input from concerned parties, with an overall attitude that balanced interests, proper evidence, and science-based policies are all "good things". (Instead of policy-based "science".)

39. John Hartz at 00:39 AM on 21 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Recommended supplemental reading:

    Trump’s Move to Demolish Demolish Greenhouse Gas Standards Is Based on a Lie by Richard L. Revesz*, Slate, Feb 20, 2026

    *Richard L. Revesz is a professor and dean emeritus at the New York University School of Law. He is the co-author of Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the “War on Coal.”

40. prove we are smart at 17:06 PM on 20 February 2026
    Climate Adam - Climate Scientist Reacts to AI Overlords
    

    Well said Adam. These tech billionaires are the wealthiest in the world www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-top-20-billionaires-in-2026/ . They stay cosy with political leaders for a mutual quid pro quo gain- with citizens being the losers. Becoming an elite seems to require a loss of ethics but some are calling out and showing us courage and a way to fight back. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZOoT8AbkNE&t=49s

41. nigelj at 05:27 AM on 20 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Thanks Bob. You create a persuasive case for ultimately leaving regulations to the technocrats within government agencies and to the executive branch. Regulatory capture of politicians in congress and parliament is very real. 

42. bobmaginnis at 09:05 AM on 19 February 2026
    Climate Adam - Climate Scientist Reacts to AI Overlords
    

    I agree, A.I. isn't a magic fix.

43. Bob Loblaw at 02:40 AM on 19 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    nigel:

    I don't know the internal workings of legislation in the US, but in Canada the process of legislating federal regulations goes something like this:

    • Parliament decides that there needs to be regulation in some broad area (or maybe not so broad). This can be due to advice from the executive branch (administrators, scientists working for the government), industry, NGOs, academics, the general public, etc. It does not matter much what sort of pressure motivates Parliament to take action, but at some point the Minister and governing party decide "yes, we need to do something about this" and write legislation to "make it so".
    • The legislation will assign the duty to regulate to one or more ministries - e.g. Environment, Agriculture, etc. The legislation can enable that ministry to create new regulations (within specified limits), or modify existing ones, or both.
    • The legislation will typically outline the processes that the ministry must follow to exercise those powers. That will typcially include public consultation, industry consultation, evaluation of alternatives, costs of implementing the regulations (both to government and industry), the cost of doing nothing (i.e. what damage will result), etc.
    • The ministry does not need to go back to Parliament to get approval for new regulations or changes to existing ones - as long as the original act of Parliament delegated the authority to the ministry to do those actions.
    • The question of whose advice the ministry follows is an important one. A common form of corruption is regulatory capture.

    As a crude, simplistic example, when a province delegates authority to the Ministry of Highways to set speed limits on the provincial roads, the decisions on what those limits are will be done by administrators within the ministry, under the advice of people that understand traffic. (Well, sometimes it might also be under political pressure. If the politicians want to force such limits, they need to pass legislation to do it. Let's not go there.)

    The idea that there are large sections of government that are creating regulations willy-nilly, completely independent of Parliament (AKA "elected representatives"), is bollocks.

    IMHO, the push to disallow regulation management by the administrative branch and force it back on legislatures is driven by special interests that simply want to eliminate regulation. By refusing to delegate any authority down to levels where they can be managed by subject experts (i.e., lower than the legislature), they can assure that their political goals can be reached simply by buying managing the politicians.

44. nigelj at 17:38 PM on 18 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Why not leave it to congress to decide whether the most important pollution regulations should become law, and obviously that would include CO2, and leave it to the EPA to have authority to decide on whether the smaller pollution ssues become law. Surely criteria can be agreed on what issues fit in what category. That way congress dont get overwhelmed with dealing with minor issues that are quite technical

45. Bob Loblaw at 06:43 AM on 18 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    John @ 5:

    They may have dropped that horribly-biased document from their formal evaluation report, but it's effect lingers on.

    It's like a Law and Order episode, where the lawyer makes an outrageous statement or leading question, knowing that there will be an objection and the judge will rule it out of order - but the jury can't unhear it.

46. Bob Loblaw at 06:37 AM on 18 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Eric:

    Your bottom line of expecting Congress to act looks like a dead horse to me. Two years ago, the USSC reversed the Chevron deference precedent (as discussed on this SkS repost in July, 2004). This has the effect of barring the executive branch from being pro-active. The expectation that Congress will react to each and every new pollutant and set new limits on old ones when science says it is needed is beyond their skill set.

    Enacting legislation that empowers the executive branch to regulate allows for efficiencies in dealing with unexpected issues and new problems. Of course, that regulatory power needs to be clearly limited in the legislation that grants it, but expecting Congress to revisit the legislation every time something changes a bit (e.g. new science, new risks, new pollution limits) is a dog that won't hunt.

    ...but I think that is part of the plan. Sell the "we can't let unelected administrators make decisions, we need to leave that to Congress" story, knowing that Congress won't (or can't) get their act together. End result: no regulation at all, and industry is free to pollute in any way that makes money for them. That approach made lots of money for the robber barons of the 19th century. I'd hoped we were past that.

47. Eric (skeptic) at 06:01 AM on 18 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Bob, I agree with you but have more sympathy for the USSC which was asked to decide a scientific / regulatory question with a 5-4 vote in 2007 but would vote 6-3 the other way today. That's not their fault, it's Congress shirking its responsibility to act. The can do it, and have with Diesel Emissions Reduction Act which also lowers CO2 and is bipartisan and continues to be reauthorized. Also the HFC act in 2020.  DERA is incentive based, like the bipartisan infrastructure act which some republicans, especially in the Senate, signed onto.  Spending more money on whatever is an easy way to buy those votes.  

    The 2007 case at the USSC is not very general or valuable as precedent.  As the Roberts dissent points out it is "special solicitude".  Massachusetts cannot enumerate how the loss of vehicle standards will affect their loss of coastal property.  Nor can they link how the proposed vehicle standards will save their coastal property, because there are too many other factors not under our control.  He states 'The good news is that the Court’s “special solicitude” for Massachusetts limits the future applicability of the diluted standing requirements applied in this case'.

    Bottom line Congress needs to create specific numeric targets like CAA did with carbon monoxide.  Let industries and/or states decide how to meet them.  Or just spend a lot more borrowed money (I do not endorse that approach).

48. michael sweet at 03:03 AM on 18 February 2026
    Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
    

    Pollution Monster,

    It appears that you posted at your link asking how they made their conclusions.  Questioning people is a good way to learn.

    At your link they claimed that I used motivated reasoning to skew data and conclude nuclear cannot generate more than 5% of all power and pointed out that nuclear currently generates 9% of electricity.  Another poster pointed out that electricity is only 20% of all power.  9% of electricity is only 2% of all power.  Who is using motivated reasoning?

    This shows me several points:

    1) The OP did not read Abbott 2012.  Nuclear supporters generally do not do their homework.

    2) The OP does not know what all power is.  They do not even know the basic vocabulary of energy systems.  Nuclear supporters do not discuss all power since it is obvious that nuclear cannot provide a significant fraction.

    3) Most nuclear posters do not know much beyond nuclear industry propaganda.

    There is no data showing modular reactors are safer.  Upthread I link a report from a national nuclear regulator (French I think) stating this fact.  Modular reactors produce more radioactive waste than conventional reactors.  Cost will probably be higher.  Links upthread.

    In 2006 modular reactor designers said they would have running reactors in 2020.  Few have even a design now, much less an approved design.  When will their designs be ready?  Why should I think they will be built faster when nuclear designers have promised faster, cheaper builds for Fifty Years and not delivered on their promises?

    Bob Loblaw and I have followed nuclear for a long time.  Nuclear designers are very long on promises with very few successes. 

    Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium 

49. John Hartz at 00:32 AM on 18 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Recommeded supplemental reading:

    Trump Administration Dropped Controversial Climate Report From Its Decision to Rescind EPA Endangerment Finding

    The final EPA rule explicitly omitted the report commissioned last year to justify revoking the endangerment finding, citing “concerns raised by some commenters.”

    by Dennis Pillion, Inside Climate News, Feb 13, 2026

    Introductory text:

    "When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rescinded its bedrock endangerment finding Thursday, it explicitly excluded a controversial report issued last year by the U.S. Department of Energy that argued the dangers of human-induced climate change were being overstated.

     

    The EPA cited the report in announcing its intention to rescind the endangerment finding last year, but those citations were not part of the final rule.

     

    Instead, the EPA argued that the Clean Air Act 'does not authorize the Agency to prescribe emission standards in response to global climate change concerns,' despite the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency does have that authority. 

    In its rule issued Thursday, EPA stated that the 'legal interpretation finalized in this action means that we cannot resolve remaining scientific controversies in this regulatory context'.”

    To access the entire article, go to: 

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13022026/controversial-climate-report-dropped-from-endangerment-finding-decision/
50. Bob Loblaw at 00:25 AM on 18 February 2026
    Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
    

    Eric:

    The key point in your comment is the statement "this will be litigated". That, of course, will take time.

    The current political/legal/constitutional situation in the U.S. (I consider all three of those words to be equivalent today) is that the executive/legislative/judicial branches are pretty much in a mode where they think they can do anything they want - or at least, anything they think they can get away with.

    Legal precedent means very little in a Supreme Court that looks at precedence as a minor inconvenience that can be ignored at will. Far too many lower court decisions are being decided along party lines (who appointed the judge). The executive branch has an attitude that it doesn't matter what the courts say as long as they can break things they want to break before the long legal process plays out. And the legislative branch is refusing to take back the powers that the constitution gives them - content to let the executive branch act like a bull in a china shop.

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next