Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Blockbuster Announcement Coming: EPA Will No Longer Regulate Greenhouse Gasses

Published

9 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

Rolling back the Endangerment Finding “will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America.”

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said Tuesday that his agency will announce its intent to roll back the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the rule that allows the agency to regulate greenhouse gasses.

Zeldin said Tuesday on the conservative “Ruthless” podcast that the Endangerment Finding makes life more expensive for Americans and has been used to impose strict regulations on vehicles. Zeldin noted that the rule change will consider modern scientific data and be open to public comment, in line with the federal rulemaking process.

“This has been referred to as basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion,” Zeldin said. “How big is the Endangerment Finding? Well, repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America.”

Zeldin is expected to announce the proposal to overturn the Obama-era rule from Indianapolis, Indiana, alongside the Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Indiana officials, including Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and Republican Indiana Rep. Jim Baird.

“Conservatives believe that we can both protect the environment and grow the economy. It’s not a choice. We are choosing to do both. And on top of it, that’s what the American public wants,” Zeldin said on the podcast.

After the agency announced reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding in March in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other federal agencies, the EPA submitted a request to OMB about the Finding on June 30. Once proposed rules are published in the federal registry, they are available for public comment for at least 30 days, though significant or major rules are often required to have a 60-day implementation delay.


Background article


DAVID BLACKMON: Zeldin, Trump, Prepare Assault On EPA Endangerment Finding

DAVID BLACKMON: Zeldin, Trump, Prepare Assault On EPA Endangerment Finding
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin (Screenshot/Fox News/”The Ingraham Angle”)

The Trump administration is gearing up to try to revoke one of the most overreaching, unscientific regulatory edifices ever erected: the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding.” News broke this week that the Environmental Protection Agency has drafted a plan to rescind this cornerstone of federal climate policy, which declared that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane pose a danger to human health and welfare.

If this move succeeds, it would limit the federal government’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars, power plants, and industries—a prospect that has the climate alarmist crowd clutching their pearls. And frankly, it’s about time someone challenged this rank absurdity.

Let’s take a walk down memory lane to 2009, when the Obama-era EPA, emboldened by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, decided to anoint itself the arbiter of America’s energy future. The endangerment finding was born, asserting that CO2 – literally plant food, and the fundamental building block for all life on planet Earth – is actually a “pollutant” that “endangers public health” as defined under the Clean Air Act.

This vast expansion of the regulatory state wasn’t based on some groundbreaking scientific discovery but rather on a political agenda dressed up in green rhetoric. The finding has since provided the legal foundation for a slew of regulations, from tailpipe emissions standards to power plant rules, all designed to choke the fossil fuel industry and push the U.S. toward a so-called “clean energy” utopia that exists only in the fever dreams of climate activists.

Now, the Trump EPA, led by Administrator Lee Zeldin, appears poised to dismantle this house of cards. Zeldin’s draft proposal argues that the EPA overstepped its authority by issuing such a sweeping determination.

The plan focuses on a legal argument that the EPA’s administrator lacks the power to make broad proclamations about greenhouse gases without specific congressional authorization. This is a direct jab at the 2007 Supreme Court decision, a judicial overreach that gave unelected bureaucrats a blank check to regulate the economy. It is key to also remember that that decision came at a time when the Chevron Deference, which the Court did away with a year ago, was still in effect.

Adopted in 1984, the Chevron Deference held that courts must defer to the judgment of regulators when interpreting the congressional intent of federal statutes. But the Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate CO2, a point even the late Rep. John Dingell, a co-author of the law, made clear.

Of course, the climate alarm lobby will drag this fight into the courts, so overturning the finding will not be easy. The EPA must navigate a minefield of procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the alarmists will try to overwhelm the courts with claims that climate change has only grown since 2009, asserting that every extreme weather event somehow proves their case.

But the Trump administration isn’t denying climate change outright; it’s questioning whether the EPA has the legal authority to act as America’s climate czar. This is a fight worth having, because if the agency can regulate CO2 without clear congressional approval, what’s stopping it from declaring water vapor a pollutant next?

The bigger picture here illustrates the absurdity of the energy transition itself. The endangerment finding has been a cudgel to force a shift away from reliable, affordable fossil fuels toward a fantasy of windmills and solar panels that can’t power a modern economy. The U.S. is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, but even if we zeroed out emissions tomorrow, global temperatures would barely budge without similar action from China and India.

Meanwhile, Americans bear the brunt of higher energy costs and a less reliable grid. Rescinding the endangerment finding could free up the economy to innovate without the EPA’s heavy hand, letting market forces—not bureaucrats—drive energy and climate solutions.

This move is a bold step toward dismantling the regulatory state’s stranglehold on American energy. It won’t be quick or easy, and the climate zealots will fight tooth and nail. But if the Trump administration can pull it off, it’ll be a victory for common sense over green dogma, a win for innovation over regulation. A long, hard fight lies ahead, but it is one worth having, and which is long overdue.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Business

Trump’s long-promised “reciprocal tariff” regime is no longer a threat — it’s the new world order.

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The world woke up Friday to Trump’s tariff world order — with a rate-modifying executive order enforcing the terms of Liberation Day, imposing tariffs up to 41% on countries that failed to cut a deal with the United States.

Key Details:

  • The executive order builds on Trump’s April Liberation Day proclamation, which declared chronic U.S. trade deficits a national emergency and imposed ad valorem tariffs on nearly 70 countries.
  • Thursday’s follow-up order modifies tariff levels, effective seven days after signing, with full penalties up to 41% now locked in for countries that failed to reach meaningful trade or security agreements with the U.S.
  • Transshipped goods — products routed through third countries to evade tariffs — will be hit with a flat 40% duty and no possibility for leniency. A blacklist of violators will be published every six months.

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump formalized a new phase of his Liberation Day trade strategy on Thursday, signing an executive order that rewrites tariff rates and tightens enforcement across the global economy. With this action, Trump’s long-promised “reciprocal tariff” regime is no longer a threat — it’s the new world order.

The executive order, issued from the White House Thursday, amends the original April declaration that framed persistent U.S. trade deficits as a national emergency. That earlier order imposed broad-based duties on nearly 70 countries. Thursday’s update locks in or adjusts those penalties depending on each country’s progress — or lack thereof — in negotiations with the United States.

For countries that reached or are nearing “meaningful trade and security commitments” with the United States, temporary rates will remain in place as agreements are finalized. For the rest, full penalties apply — with tariffs ranging from 10% to 41%, as outlined in Annex I of the order.

The European Union receives a tailored formula: if a product’s current U.S. tariff is under 15%, the new combined rate will be pushed to that floor. Goods already above 15% will not face additional penalties.

But the most aggressive provision of the order targets a growing tactic of tariff evasion — transshipping. Under Section 3, goods that are determined by Customs and Border Protection to have been rerouted through third countries to avoid tariffs will face an automatic 40% penalty. Mitigation or reduction of that duty is explicitly barred under the order.

Trump’s team will also release a biannual blacklist of known violators — naming countries and facilities involved in circumvention schemes. This list will inform public procurement, national security reviews, and corporate due diligence.

The order empowers the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Treasury, and the U.S. Trade Representative to implement the policy, issue regulations, and take “all necessary actions” to enforce it.

Countries that failed to reach a deal by the deadline now face the consequences. Those still negotiating have little time left. And for businesses and governments around the world, the message is clear: American leverage is back — and it comes with a price tag.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s postal service would benefit from liberalization, privatization, new MEI publication shows

Published on

From the Montreal Economic Institute

  • Canada Post has accumulated $3.8 billion in losses since 2018.
  • The Crown corporation is receiving a $1-billion taxpayer loan to stay afloat in 2025-2026.
  • Privatization should include an employee share ownership plan.

Privatizing Canada Post and opening up the sector to competition would result in better services and lower prices for Canadians, shows a new publication released by the MEI.

“Canadians are held hostage by a postal system that is inefficient, strike-prone, and, increasingly, financially non-viable,” says Vincent Geloso, senior economist at the MEI and co-author of the report. “We should follow the lead of European countries like Germany that have liberalized and privatized their postal services, with excellent results.”

Canada Post has a federal monopoly on regular letter mail, making it the only entity legally permitted to deliver non-express letters.

The Crown corporation has run deficits for seven straight years, accumulating over $3.6 billion in losses over the past decade.

Meanwhile, letter volume in Canada has fallen from 5.5 billion letters in 2006 to 2 billion in 2024, a 64 per cent decline.

Canada Post’s market share in parcel delivery has also cratered, falling from 62 per cent in 2019 to 24 per cent in 2024, as private competitors have captured more of the growing market.

In December 2024, more than 55,000 Canada Post workers went on a 32-day strike that ground mail and parcel delivery to a halt causing a backlog of nearly 10 million packages, impacting individuals and businesses alike. The strike reportedly cost small businesses an estimated $1.6 billion.

This past May, another union issued a strike notice and began a nationwide overtime ban, again obstructing delivery volumes. Currently, Canada Post employees are voting on the corporation’s latest offer; if the vote fails, there are fears that another strike would ensue.

“There is an inherent problem with monopolies,” explains Mr. Geloso. “No competition means no incentive to be efficient or innovate, which means higher prices by way of increased costs, and consumers are left with no alternative.”

In 1989, Germany decided to open up its market to a limited amount of competition, and by 2008, the sector was fully liberalized.

Privatization of Deutsche Post started in 2000, and currently, the government holds only a small minority stake in the former monopoly.

Today, over 15,000 firms offer some sort of postal service in Germany. The country’s mail service generally outperforms those of other European countries.

In Canada, the cost of sending a letter is 50 per cent higher today than it was in 1989 (inflation-adjusted).

In Germany, postage prices have fallen by 10 per cent over the same period (after accounting for inflation).

The MEI recommends the following steps to kickstart a two-year process of privatizing Canada Post:

  • Offer employees shares: This would give workers a stake in the company’s success and help prevent insiders from taking advantage during the transition (i.e., avoid asset-stripping).
  • Avoid regulatory capture: A swift reform process would reduce the risk of special interest groups lobbying regulators to lock in unfair advantages in the law.

“Canada Post’s inability to adapt to the changing market shows that it won’t get better on its own; it needs a massive overhaul,” says Mr. Geloso. “Canadians are paying a lot for a second-rate service; Germany showed us how we can turn this around.”

The MEI Economic Note is available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

Continue Reading

Trending

X