Skip to content

Rearguard Obstructionism

January 27, 2017

Those who support the CO2 hypothesis for global warming or climate change are poised to obstruct the rollback of regulations requiring the cutting of CO2 and other GHG emissions.

Whether it will be Hollywood celebrities crying over issues, or organized efforts by environmental organizations, we can expect there will be public demonstrations and lawsuits to prevent dismantling the EPA regulations that require the cutting of CO2 emissions.

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) could be the first to be dismantled.

Power Magazine highlighted one approach for preventing the dismantling of the CPP that has already emerged, citing a new paper published by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and the University of North Carolina’s Center for Climate, Energy, Environment & Economics.

The Power Magazine headline said:

“Experts: If Clean Power Plan Perishes, GHG Regulation Almost Certain Under NAAQS Program”

The paper from the universities suggests that organizations could sue the EPA to require it to use National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to control CO2 emissions.

Chart of improving air quality from Outside the Green Box by Goreham.

Chart of improving air quality from Outside the Green Box by Goreham.

It notes, “Stakeholder groups have [previously] petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the NAAQS program, and that petition still sits undecided within the EPA.”

Using NAAQS requires that pollutants “endanger public health and welfare” and come “from diverse sources.” CO2 emissions meet these conditions under current EPA rulings.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision confirmed the EPA had the authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act, if there were an endangerment finding. The subsequent EPA endangerment finding provides legal precedent for environmental groups to litigate and attempt to force the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions under NAAQS.

In spite of the controversial headline, it’s doubtful such litigation will be successful, but the paper by the two universities demonstrates there will be tireless efforts by extreme environmental groups to prevent repeal or adjustments to regulations relating to CO2 emissions.

Extreme environmentalists will not sit idly by while the new administration removes the regulations that are harming this country.

All of the actions by extreme environmentalists will be played out in the media which generally supports the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) CO2 hypothesis.

Power Magazine appears to be one of the media publications supporting the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming or climate change. Why else did Power Magazine bring forth the obscure paper from the two universities mentioned above. And what else explains why, three years ago, the magazine replaced its former editor, an engineer who was skeptical of the CO2 hypothesis, with an editor who has a Ph.D in English.

The media’s reporting will affect public perceptions, so It will be important for those who disagree with the AGW CO2 hypothesis to continue with their efforts so that the public is not overwhelmed by misinformation.

Now is not the time to assume that the battle for real science has been won.

It may be “the end of the beginning, and the beginning of the end,” but it’s nowhere near the end of the debate over whether CO2 and GHG cause climate change.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Part 2, explores the problems of using wind and solar for generating electricity.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon:

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *


It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

9 Comments leave one →
  1. January 27, 2017 10:32 am

    It was obvious that this fight was coming and that it was going to be bitter . These people are religious fanatics and with the Trump administration using reality to deal with them , they aren’t going to give up quietly . I have no problem with making the air cleaner , and it is , but their “evidence” is so obviously cooked that if it wasn’t sickening you’d laugh .
    Thanks for the info and keep up the good work

  2. January 27, 2017 1:36 pm

    I was wondering why Power Magazine had become so supporting of green technologies the last few years. Thanks for info on the change in editors. Actually, I started reading less and less of it.

    • January 27, 2017 2:16 pm

      Yes. It’s too bad they have become so much in favor of so called Green energy, and so supportive of the CO2 hypothesis.

  3. Mark permalink
    January 27, 2017 3:19 pm


    I don’t do facebook or twitter as they remind me of a pager. Hence, I wasn’t aware of some of the misinformation (alternative facts) that are in the Matrix feeds. I concur with Paul McDivitt’s concern on trying to fool your mother:

    “Making wind and solar seem like they’re doing better than they really are could come back to bite them — and the climate.”

    • January 27, 2017 3:32 pm

      Thanks. The public has many misconceptions about renewables: wind, solar and storage.
      It can be summarized as ignorance, in the sense that Mark Twain used it: Knowing what’s not true.

  4. Don Shaw permalink
    January 30, 2017 5:02 pm

    Donn thanks for the informative article. Please correct me, as I recall the CPP is still hung up in the Federal courts. Have I missed something?
    One would hope that a magazine would not take sides on such an issue, but rather encourage discussion on both sides

    • January 30, 2017 5:14 pm

      Thanks. Yes, the CPP is still waiting a Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately, Power Magazine has taken sides and is supporting the cutting of CO2 emissions.


  1. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #256 | Watts Up With That?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s