The Trump EPA
( Environmental
Protection Agency )
does want to eliminate
some Obama-era
EPA regulations.
But their announcements
about deregulation are just
statements of intent.
The actual deregulatory process
is difficult.
Legal court challenges
are often involved.
Challenges will usually be heard
at the Federal District court level,
or by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
This process can take years,
especially if the issue
goes to the Supreme Court.
Court reviews
have to be completed
before a revised (or new)
regulation is finalized.
Some important
Obama-era regulations
were intended to implement
an Obama Administration
“Endangerment Finding” (EF),
the very important regulation
claiming to show
increases in greenhouse gas
emissions endanger
public welfare,
by increasing the average
global temperatures.
The EF is based on bad science.
But the EF requires the EPA
to propose and enforce regulations
to reduce CO2 emissions.
The EF blocks all attempts
to remove or lessen regulations
on greenhouse gas emissions.
Some Obama-era
EPA climate regulations
have been put on hold.
But if a Democrat
is the next president,
these changes
would be reversed
rapidly.
Unfortunately,
the Trump EPA
avoids efforts
to end the EF.
The process of
EF reconsideration,
started with
some petitions
sent to the EPA
by skeptic groups,
requesting the EPA
to reconsider the EF.
The EPA
has not announced
any reconsideration.
Republicans must think
they'll lose votes
if they try to repeal the EF.
Many people do care about
regulation of CO2 emissions,
because they have been
brainwashed in school that CO2,
actually the staff of life,
is dangerous "pollution",
when, in fact, adding CO2
to the air is beneficial
-- 'greening' the planet --
with no more than a harmless
night time warming effect
in the colder, higher latitudes.
The Trump Administration
announces various
deregulatory proposals,
but does not actually
repeal the regulations.
A second approach
would be for the
Supreme Court
to overturn
Massachusetts vs. EPA,
by finding that the EPA
doesn't have the authority
to regulate greenhouse gases
under the Clean Air Act.
Mass. vs. EPA was decided
by only one vote at the Court.
With such a ruling,
the climate change cult
would have to
persuade Congress
to change the Clean Air Act,
to explicitly allow the EPA
to regulate greenhouse gases.
This would not happen
with Republicans controlling
the Senate.
A third approach would be
getting the Supreme Court
to declare the Obama
Clean Power Plan (CPP)
illegal, because it exceeds
the powers granted by Congress
to the EPA, under the Clean Air Act.
If the Supreme Court
endorsed climate skeptic
viewpoints,
that would prevent
a future Democrat
administration from
demonizing CO2,
like Obama did.