Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / Demystifying the repeal of the endangerment finding

Transcript

Demystifying the repeal of the endangerment finding · Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News

• 0:07
  Mainstream media has betrayed our trust.
• 0:10
  Rather than tell us the whole story about the important issues of the day, they tell us only what they want us to hear.
• 0:16
  Your hosts, Tom Harris and Todd Royal will bring you the other side of the story.
• 0:27
  Last August, we had attorney Darren Basks, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute as our guest on the show to discuss the proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency to rescind the endangerment finding against carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for new motor vehicles and engines.
• 0:48
  Well, great news on February 12th, the agency took a huge step in that direction, finalizing a rule revoking greenhouse gas emission standards for cars, light trucks, and other vehicles.
• 1:00
  Wow.
• 1:00
  That is great.
• 1:02
  Those standards were originally justified in part by the 2009 endangerment finding, but last week's action rescinded the endangerment finding.
• 1:10
  Yay.
• 1:12
  While this is an historic deregulatory action, it's also confusing as to what actually happened and its impact on the average citizen.
• 1:19
  So we've invited Darren back to the program to explain what really happened a couple of weeks ago and what needs to happen next to get the whole endangerment finding made null and void.
• 1:31
  In his role at the competitive enterprise institute, that's CEI.org.
• 1:36
  Darren Bask manages, develops, and leads the coalition advocacy and research activities of the center, which is one of the most effective advocates for free market environmentalism.
• 1:48
  Previously, Darren was senior research fellow in environmental policy and regulation at the Heritage Foundation, where he worked for a decade and hosted the energy and environment podcast called PowerCast.
• 2:00
  Darren also worked on environmental policy and regulations at the U.S.
• 2:04
  Chamber of Commerce as a policy console.
• 2:07
  Before that, he was director of legal and regulatory studies at the John Locke Foundation.
• 2:13
  Darren has also testified before Congress and has appeared in a wide range of media, such as the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Times, and CNN.
• 2:22
  So welcome back to the show, Darren.
• 2:24
  That's great to be here, Tom.
• 2:25
  Thank you.
• 2:26
  Yeah, it's good to have you.
• 2:28
  So can you give our audience some background?
• 2:31
  Like what is the endangerment finding and how did it come about?
• 2:34
  Why it's important to get rid of to end the climate scare, at least at the federal level in the United States.
• 2:39
  Yeah, the endangerment finding is from 2009.
• 2:44
  The Obama administration basically did an analysis of a provision in the Clean Air Act that asked the question whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles and engines may reasonably be anticipated, could cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
• 3:04
  So they the answer they gave was yes, it does endanger public health and welfare.
• 3:09
  The reason why this is so important is that is the foundation by which the environmental protection agency, the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases.
• 3:25
  But the Obama administration and the Biden administration have used that 2009 endangerment finding to basically support other greenhouse gas regulations across the Clean Air Act.
• 3:35
  So the power plant rule, um, regulating aircrafts, greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft.
• 3:41
  So getting rid of it is I mean, it's critical because it helps to kind of undo this all these greenhouse gas regulations, which yes, they're very costly in terms of money and drive up costs for American families.
• 3:55
  But what it does also is it gives the government a chance to limit our freedom, restrict cars we can buy, how we produce our electricity.
• 4:03
  It turns an environmental agency into really what I think of as an economic planning agency.
• 4:09
  Because when you can regulate greenhouse gases, you can regulate almost every facet of the economy.
• 4:13
  So trying to get rid of this, and I think the Trump administration is successful in defending it in court, really make a huge difference in getting rid of greenhouse gas regulations across the board.
• 4:24
  So, Darren, how was the purpose of the Clean Air Act distorted to use it to control carbon dioxide?
• 4:30
  Because I understand that was not the original intent at all.
• 4:34
  Yeah, it was wasn't the intent.
• 4:36
  And you know, really comes down to a case called Massachusetts First EPA, where some governmental groups wanted to they sue the EPA.
• 4:46
  They want they thought that under this section of the Clean Air Act that regulates air pollutants from new motor vehicles, that greenhouse gases should be part of those air pollutants.
• 4:56
  Um that air pollutant on the sea clean air act covers greenhouse gases.
• 5:01
  The Supreme Court in this case, Massachusetts First EPA agreed that uh greenhouse gas emissions are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
• 5:10
  Uh, say that that by itself is a terrible decision and consistent with kind of what we understand to be air pollutants, just kind of a common understanding of the term.
• 5:20
  Um, and even the inaconsist with the language of the statute.
• 5:24
  It also is very consistent with just the way the statute itself, the law works.
• 5:28
  So it creates all kinds of problems.
• 5:30
  What is important for everybody to know is that Massachusetts versus EPA did not tell the EPA that they had to regulate greenhouse gases.
• 5:37
  It also didn't say that you had the agency had to find that an endangered public health welfare.
• 5:43
  What it did is it said, EPA, you can't simply decide not to undergo this analysis to figure out whether or not there's endangerment.
• 5:51
  And it did to kind of lead to the conclusion that okay, once you do the endangerment analysis and you find that there is endangerment, then yes, at that point, you would need to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
• 6:02
  And that's what the Obama is.
• 6:04
  So they did they didn't have to find that it was dangerous.
• 6:07
  I mean, they could have.
• 6:08
  It's funny because I was reading the threshold to find that it was not dangerous, was higher than the threshold to find that it was dangerous because so much of the politically correct science that's easy to find, said it was dangerous.
• 6:21
  So they actually were kind of in a position where if they agreed that it was dangerous, that was an easier route to follow.
• 6:28
  Yeah, that the way the Cleaner Act language reason that section is it kind of it's not the highest threshold to determine endangerment.
• 6:36
  Um, unfortunately.
• 6:38
  But having said that, and we'll get into this, I know later, it still was when you do the analysis under the statutory language.
• 6:46
  A lot of this is gonna be legal.
• 6:48
  Um, you still don't get to the point where you when you look at the new motor vehicle emissions.
• 6:53
  Question is does it cause or contribute to the air pollution that dangerous public health welfare?
• 6:59
  The answer is still no.
• 7:01
  And explain why, but it's kind of a, you know, there's you're not figuring out necessarily whether or not the air pollution from those emissions themselves are dangerous.
• 7:11
  You're figuring out whether or not they contribute to this kind of global climate, you know, pollution, alleged pollution from greenhouse gases, and whether or not it contributes somehow to that that then makes it more dangerous.
• 7:24
  So yeah, and we can I again we can tell you for more.
• 7:28
  It's kind of convoluted, isn't it?
• 7:30
  And it's interesting that Representative Dingle, Democrat from MI, MI, that's Missouri.
• 7:36
  Michigan.
• 7:36
  Michigan, okay.
• 7:38
  He actually said that no, the Clean Air Act is not the tool to be using to control CO2.
• 7:43
  He thought CO2 was a problem, but he said that no, that the clean air, and I understand that in repealing the endangerment finding, they are really leaning on the legal aspects, aren't they?
• 7:55
  Yeah, the the EPA finalized uh a rule, this endangerment rule.
• 8:00
  It is a rescission of the endangerment finding, the 2009 endangerment finding, and the agency is concluding that it does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles and engines.
• 8:14
  So that covers cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, just anything that can be regulated under section 202.
• 8:21
  That's on motor vehicles.
• 8:24
  Yeah.
• 8:24
  So if you were on the other side of the argument, would you try to use the Clean Air Act to moderate or to control greenhouse gases, or would you do what Dingle says and look for some other way, get Congress to agree to a totally new approach?
• 8:38
  Well, they can't, you know, the thing is that the other side has tried to use Congress and to get it done, and Congress doesn't want to.
• 8:44
  They don't think they're not gonna, they don't want to regulate.
• 8:47
  And you know, I think there was there was a recognition that that really what they had to do is they had to do an end run around Congress.
• 8:54
  And that's really what is what happened in 2009.
• 8:58
  But I mean, you know, it did start with the Massachusetts EPA case, and then he had the endangerment finding.
• 9:04
  And it was an unfortunate opinion back in 2007.
• 9:07
  And we've kind of gone, we've kind of learned how bad this can be here in the U.S.
• 9:11
  with greenhouse gas regulations.
• 9:13
  We just had this Biden EV de facto mandate, you know, which they're trying to get people basically trying to kill off gas powered cars.
• 9:21
  We've had the EPA try to basically act as our nation's grid manager, trying to kill off reliable electricity sources like coal and natural gas, and instead shift us to wind and solar.
• 9:33
  You know, like no regard for what the costs are, how it'll hurt low income communities, how make it more difficult for people to get around.
• 9:40
  And in general, when we do look at climate policy and for those pushing more of these radical approaches to climate policy, rarely do they look at the cost and the trade-offs.
• 9:51
  It's all about their objective.
• 9:53
  And if it drives up costs and hurts people in other ways, so be it.
• 9:57
  Yeah, yeah.
• 9:58
  And you know, I understand that the
• 10:00
  Endangerment finding has really affected life for the average American.
• 10:03
  Can you talk about that?
• 10:04
  Because it's been enforced for 16 years.
• 10:07
  So what impact has it had on the average American?
• 10:11
  Look, I mean, I mean, one of the good things is that some of these rules, the power plant rule, so the Obama power plant rule got shot down in court.
• 10:20
  And fortunately, a lot of the harm has been mitigated in a lot of ways, what it could do, because again, they got shot down the power plant rule, but it drives up prices.
• 10:30
  And even when this is kind of even now, this unpredictability makes it the you get the the auto manufacturers basically trying to shift towards EVs and then changing the fleet.
• 10:41
  And now they're learning.
• 10:43
  Well, of course, now there's a realization, maybe we don't want to do that.
• 10:46
  And they and now so it's just um it's about driving up costs.
• 10:50
  And the concern is really what it what would happen if you kind of allow these rules to keep, you know, if they actually get finalized, confirmed and withstand legal scrutiny, then you have a situation where you don't you'd have a hard time finding cars and internal combustion engines in the future.
• 11:06
  Um but it'll be very expensive.
• 11:09
  You have to buy EVs that are not at this point anywhere near as reliable as gas power cars.
• 11:15
  Yeah.
• 11:16
  People expect when you flick on the switch that the light's going to come on.
• 11:20
  If some of these greenhouse gas regulations, when it comes to power plants, we're able to kind of become definitely law and to stand judicial scrutiny, then our our grid is going to have some serious threats, and we might have to get used to brownouts and even blackhouse.
• 11:36
  So yeah, it's a big concern.
• 11:38
  Exactly.
• 11:39
  It strikes me that to some extent this is uh self-defeating, because I mean, if there really was a climate emergency coming, then you'd want to have the most solid dependable energy sources so that you could be ready to adapt to whatever climate change occurs.
• 11:53
  And and this is where I find the environmentalists seem to be basically contradicting themselves.
• 11:58
  They say, Oh, you know, we have these extreme weather events are increasing, and they're not increasing, are they?
• 12:04
  No.
• 12:04
  No.
• 12:05
  And so then they turn around and say, but you have to switch to the most fragile and flimsy energy sources, which is the exact opposite of what you would do if indeed there was a climate emergency happening.
• 12:17
  So I mean, it really sounds like they're just basically crippling the United States with the environmental rules.
• 12:24
  I think they they fail to recognize that the wealthiest countries have the best environmental records.
• 12:29
  If you're dealing with some climate emergency, do you want to be some poor country that can't meet basic needs, or do you want to be a wealthy country like the US that has this innovative comes up with solutions and you want to be the wealthy country, of course.
• 12:43
  But you know, they there's this idea that we have to somehow inflict pain on ourselves now to address this problem when in fact it wouldn't address any alleged problem.
• 12:54
  Anyway, yeah, um, and no, what you want to do is you want to remove barriers, you want to reduce regulations, you want to unleash American energy and prosperity.
• 13:03
  You want people to be wealthier, the nation to be wealthier, you want to have more innovation, and then you'll be in the best position to address any challenge that we face, including if it's if it is a big challenge, climate change.
• 13:16
  Yeah, yeah, exactly.
• 13:18
  Uh okay, Darren, I have a um dear dear friend, probably my best friend where I live.
• 13:23
  He's a huge car guy.
• 13:25
  You and Tom both will appreciate this.
• 13:26
  And I tell him, hey, do you know anything about the endangerment finding?
• 13:29
  And he goes, no, I know nothing.
• 13:32
  He's an insurance executive, and he goes, I know nothing, Todd, but he loves cars, and he was complaining to me that his car wasn't working well.
• 13:40
  And I go, Well, you know, all these things are added to it, what I call the global warming switch, and now it it was the endangered finding CO2, you know, blah, blah, blah.
• 13:49
  And he's just he's gobsmacked over it.
• 13:52
  And so my question to you then is with the the rescinding of this and whatever that actually really means, how is this going to affect cars in the United States, whether you know, passenger vehicle, truck, and is that dreaded as I like to call it, the shut off my engine global warming switch, which causes so many problems all the time and has dramatically increased the price of cars.
• 14:17
  What's going to happen to all that?
• 14:18
  And can my dear friend uh what what do I get to tell them?
• 14:22
  Well, in the short term, you can tell them that there's gonna be some litigation.
• 14:26
  So it's gonna take a little while.
• 14:29
  And I don't really know how the automakers are going to respond and how they decide to change what they produce.
• 14:37
  Um if in fact this rule does survive, and then the courts say it's okay, then I think he's gonna be okay and will be able to buy the kind of cars he wants to buy and won't have the government dictate what kind of cars he needs to buy.
• 14:52
  But if it if it fails, then it would depend on.
• 14:55
  I don't want to get too complicated, but it depends on let's assume the Biden administration de facto mandate rule existed and that survives.
• 15:03
  And basically what it is is an effort to again force people out of gas powered cars.
• 15:09
  And really, by like, I think the goal is by 2032 to have I think that's the year, you'd have less than 30 percent of the cars would be internal combustion engine cars.
• 15:17
  That's new sales.
• 15:20
  So it was just if he likes internal combustion engine and gas powered cars and actually good cars and cars that work really well, then it's not looking good for him.
• 15:29
  But yeah, I think a lot of it's just gonna depend on what happens with the litigation.
• 15:33
  So people are gonna have to pay attention.
• 15:35
  We'll see.
• 15:35
  So they're trying to make the price of EVs competitive with normal cars, so they're gonna make normal cars more expensive.
• 15:41
  Like that's exactly what they do.
• 15:44
  Yeah, well, it reminds me of what happened in Quebec.
• 15:46
  They wanted to have parity between the English and French education system, so they pulled down the English.
• 15:53
  And so now they're all rotten.
• 15:57
  Curious, because um, I just want to love talking to you as an as an attorney.
• 16:01
  So I I always always have a hard time understanding you know the the different, you know, what's a between a local court, a county court, a state court, a federal court.
• 16:10
  So can you kind of walk us through and realize you're you're speaking to a Luddite right now and going when you say litigation, what does that mean?
• 16:20
  Does that mean the ACLU is gonna go sue the Trump administration or Earth Justice, Sierra Club, the environmental organizations?
• 16:27
  So how does this actually work?
• 16:29
  I'm I'm fascinated to know.
• 16:31
  Yeah.
• 16:31
  So the uh in this specific situation, the final rule was published.
• 16:37
  I don't know, it was yesterday.
• 16:39
  Okay, uh so February 18th in the federal register.
• 16:45
  It's called the Federal Register.
• 16:46
  At that point, the environmental groups can sue, and they did.
• 16:50
  They there's already a lawsuit.
• 16:52
  Who do they sue?
• 16:53
  Who do they sue?
• 16:54
  It's to the government.
• 16:55
  You know, they're challenging the rule.
• 16:57
  So they're they file this is just the way this statute works, and this so this works.
• 17:02
  They file what's called a petition for review in the it's called the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
• 17:07
  So it's kind of a high up court here.
• 17:09
  In fact, the DC circuit is considered kind of the second highest court in the US.
• 17:14
  It's a federal court, um, is DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
• 17:17
  What will happen as a practice most likely is the DC circuit will hand the environmental groups or win, most likely.
• 17:24
  It's just this is the way the DC circuit is set up.
• 17:26
  Unfortunately, it's just the way um we should expect the cookie to crumble when it comes to them.
• 17:31
  This is really all about the Supreme Court, I think.
• 17:34
  So then eventually, depending on how long the DC circuit takes with this, the hope would hope is, and my expectation would be that the Supreme Court would take up the case eventually.
• 17:44
  It could be two years, it could be longer.
• 17:47
  So you know, the one of the reasons why you want to move fast with if you're the Trump administration on this rule and get it finalized, which they did, they moved fast, is now you have you know, about close to three years to be able to be the one defending the rule in court and eventually maybe the Supreme Court.
• 18:06
  Yeah, and what's the title of the rule again?
• 18:09
  Just to make sure that we know what rule we're talking about.
• 18:12
  Let me see if I've got the exact title so people um it's a residual of the endangerment finding and motor vehicle greenhouse gas standards, something like that.
• 18:24
  Okay, so then why okay?
• 18:26
  This has always been a thing that the the non-lawyers and us always want to know why does it take so long for these things?
• 18:34
  Like what why two years from now?
• 18:36
  Because then that means the I would assume.
• 18:39
  So, what does that mean in these two years?
• 18:41
  The Trump administration says we're no longer gonna do the endangerment finding.
• 18:45
  What does that actually mean in the midst of this two-year or longer or less legal purgatory?
• 18:52
  Yeah, there's no going to be these greenhouse gas regulation standards, even from before are like not applicable right now.
• 18:59
  Okay.
• 18:59
  So it's kind of like they don't apply it, and it won't apply during this time.
• 19:04
  Now, the exception, now it is possible that the environmental groups will seek an injunction, kind of blocking that, and then to try to make sure that they are during this time actually applied.
• 19:16
  So I don't know what would happen uh with that.
• 19:19
  So in the past, the other side would issue these harmful rules or costly rules, and they might even perfectly they might recognize that there's really no chance of it surviving in court, but because of the time that it takes, and like you get the power plant, the utilities, the power plant companies basically to apply anyway, because you you haven't gotten an injunction, you haven't blocked it.
• 19:43
  The rule is still it's being enforced while it's being litigated.
• 19:46
  And what you wind up having is the power plants will have already complied with it.
• 19:51
  There'll be kind of the sunk cost issue after so many years.
• 19:55
  So it's like by the time you get any resolution, it's almost a moot point.
• 20:01
  Fortunately, when it came to the clean power plan, which was the Obama rule, there was an injunction ultimately on the on the rule, so that that kind of problem didn't happen.
• 20:12
  So we'll see.
• 20:13
  We'll see how this plays out.
• 20:15
  But yeah, it's I know it's complicated.
• 20:17
  Yeah, for sure.
• 20:18
  Now, just taking a step back to the new rule that is going to not force uh trucks and cars to to meet certain greenhouse gas emission standards.
• 20:28
  They were talking about trillions of dollars in savings.
• 20:30
  Like, do you agree with that?
• 20:32
  And how much money do you think will be saved, let's say in the next 20 years or so?
• 20:37
  Yeah, their estimate is I think 1.3 trillion for this rule from 2027 to 2055.
• 20:44
  I honestly, I think it's I think it would expect it to be more.
• 20:48
  I mean, the the uh the Biden de facto mandate, which is simply just relating to um light duty cars and vehicles, that the cost, projected cost by the Obama by the Biden administration was I think 760 billion.
• 21:04
  So just that rule by itself, and then you would have presumably additional rules over that.
• 21:10
  I mean, I don't know how they calculated it, but if I just if this kind of kept going, I I think that we could easily say that even that rule by itself probably is that's a low ball estimate on the cost of that rule.
• 21:23
  So I wouldn't be surprised if we're they see 1.3 trillion, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot higher than that.
• 21:29
  Yeah.
• 21:30
  Yeah, Steve Mulloy was saying it's in the neighborhood of four trillion.
• 21:33
  Yeah, that that's sounds like that makes sense to me.
• 21:37
  Yeah.
• 21:38
  And do you think it really is the largest uh deregulation in history?
• 21:44
  It is, but I mean, even if you were weren't simply looking, if you're just simply looking at the 1.3 trillion, but it probably is by itself, but it's more than that.
• 21:53
  It's it's that the by getting rid of this, it really can it will connect to other complicated, but they are there's a related rule that deals with power plants.
• 22:05
  And it will, if this ruling is favorable, it will basically knock out greenhouse gas regulations across the board.
• 22:13
  And so, and all those things, all those rules have all kinds of different costs too.
• 22:18
  Yeah.
• 22:18
  So even though this rule is specifically about new motor vehicles and engines, the the logic, the endangerment finding has been used as a basis for these other greenhouse gas rules.
• 22:29
  And besides the the logic that's being applied in the in the case now for the endangerment finding and getting rid of it, applies for power plants and other things.
• 22:40
  So it it is very sweeping.
• 22:42
  Just like this is a huge sweeping assertion of power by the EPA um to be able to regulate greenhouse gases, and I think it is really kind of the biggest, arguably the biggest intrusion in American history by the government into just across the entire economy.
• 22:57
  I think lifting that would therefore be the biggest deregulatory effort I can imagine.
• 23:01
  So it's just is huge.
• 23:04
  Hey, Darren, I'm curious what you think, because you know, um let me frame this.
• 23:08
  I traveled to India about two and a half years ago, and obviously there's no regulations at a coal-fired power plant.
• 23:16
  I don't know.
• 23:16
  I'll say maybe 10, 12 blocks from my hotel and uh in Mumbai, and I I was up very high in high hotel room, and like I couldn't go out on the balcony.
• 23:25
  It was that I mean it started burning my eyes.
• 23:29
  How then do we balance taking away the endangerment finding and this government over over intrusion with even someone like me is gonna go, well, we need something.
• 23:40
  Where's that?
• 23:41
  I don't know where that middle.
• 23:43
  I'm asking you, and you may not know, but I'm just wondering where that middle ground is.
• 23:47
  Yeah, we don't have to worry too much about middle ground here because the I should clarify the endangerment finding only applies to greenhouse gases.
• 23:55
  Um this the the EPA can still regulate air pollutants like particulate matter and everything.
• 24:03
  Um have a local regional effect, the way what we generally think of is air pollution, and using this specific section of the cleaner act.
• 24:11
  So they can still regulate emissions for new motor vehicles um and engines, uh, but just not the greenhouse gas emissions.
• 24:18
  So the the effect that you had uh at the you know for the power plant in India had nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
• 24:25
  Got it.
• 24:25
  Yeah, okay.
• 24:26
  Okay, thank you for clarifying that.
• 24:28
  We have to go for a break now, but after the break, Darren, I'm hoping you can tell us what major arguments the EPA will put forward to justify rescinding the greenhouse gas emission rules for vehicles and engines.
• 24:40
  Can we get into that after the break?
• 24:42
  Absolutely.
• 24:43
  Let's look forward to it.
• 24:44
  Okay, so we'll be right back after the break.
• 24:47
  Okay, we're calling all Patriots to Nashville, Tennessee, July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th for a powerful celebration of faith, freedom, and the American spirit.
• 24:58
  America Out Loud, the Wellness Company, and Clear invite you to join us for the 25010 Nashville event.
• 25:07
  You'll experience best in class speakers, extraordinary voices from across America, bringing inspiring messages you won't forget.
• 25:15
  And on July 4th, get ready for the most spectacular buy work show in the country.
• 25:20
  Lighten up the Nashville sky.
• 25:23
  250 years of liberty in America and 10 years of America Out Loud News.
• 25:29
  Standing strong for truth, justice, and the nation we all love.
• 25:33
  You can save now with early bird crison at America Outloud dot news.
• 25:38
  Forward slash Nashville, July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.
• 25:43
  America Out Loud News.
• 25:45
  25010 Nashville.
• 25:48
  Are you struggling with thinning hair or excessive shedding?
• 25:51
  I know I am.
• 25:51
  Discover roots from the wellness company.
• 25:53
  It's a doctor formulated hydrogel with seven powerful peptides that help repair and restore visibly thicker, fuller hair.
• 26:01
  It also contains methylene blue, which boosts mitochondrial function and nourishes your scalp without any oily residue, whether it's stress, hormones, or aging.
• 26:10
  This formula targets the root cause, literally.
• 26:13
  Visit TWC.health forward slash outloud and use code out loud for 20% off your first order.
• 26:20
  That is TWC.
• 26:24
  Experience the science of hair regrowth with roots.
• 26:27
  In just two minutes per day, you can reclaim your health and cut your grocery bill in half with one simple convenient product.
• 26:34
  Our doctor formulated green 85 juice formula's powerful dose of ultra-concentrated essential nutrients, stops hunger in its tracks, and supplies your cells with what's missing in the grocery store food.
• 26:46
  Go to ChemicalFreeBody.com forward slash out loud today.
• 26:50
  Get nature's super multivitamin Green 85, empower your immune system, cut down on your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order.
• 26:58
  You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands.
• 27:02
  What about washing your nose?
• 27:04
  I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe.
• 27:07
  Air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and irritants, make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear.
• 27:13
  No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation.
• 27:16
  Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion.
• 27:23
  Available in stores and online at clear.com.
• 27:26
  That is XLEAR.com.
• 27:28
  Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?
• 27:33
  Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.
• 27:36
  Bear bars are a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients.
• 27:43
  Bear bars or plant-based, organic gluten-free, contain six grams of protein and are low temperature dried for unique crunch.
• 27:52
  Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups or sweeteners.
• 27:59
  To learn more, just visit barebar.com slash out loud.
• 28:04
  I'm Doug Evans, author of the sprout book.
• 28:06
  And I'm also a father with a three-year-old daughter.
• 28:10
  And that's why we grow sprouts.
• 28:13
  Did you know that you could take seeds, add water, and get fresh organic vegetables in three to five days without soil, sunshine, or fertilizer for under a dollar a serving?
• 28:26
  That's the miracle of sprouting.
• 28:28
  And I want to share that with you.
• 28:30
  Go to the sprouting company.com slash out loud and use the code out loud for a special offer.
• 28:38
  Filling off since COVID?
• 28:40
  Try the wellness company spike detox trio, packed with natok kinase, bromaline, and turmeric to help boost your immune system and fight off harmful spike proteins.
• 28:48
  Bounce back with energy and clarity.
• 28:50
  Go to TWC.health forward slash out loud and use promo code out loud for 20% off your first order.
• 28:58
  Well, it's high time Americans refuse to be honest in the human chest.
• 29:04
  Under the name of diversity, politicians divide the people in their quest for pump.
• 29:09
  Well, diversity of opinion and expression is as American as Apple Pond.
• 29:18
  Now is our time, my fellow Americans.
• 29:22
  America Outlaw dot news.
• 29:24
  Liberty and justice for all.
• 29:31
  And we are back with Darren Baskett, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
• 29:38
  Darren, we were talking about before we went to break, kind of what is the EPA going to be arguing, or what are the facts uh to to rescind the endangerment finding?
• 29:49
  Yeah, so the like I said, the final rule just came out, so still kind of going through all of it.
• 29:56
  Um, but the the major arguments are.
• 30:00
  There's something called the major questions doctrine.
• 30:02
  Yeah, I don't understand that because that's apparently a really important thing to understand, right?
• 30:07
  Yeah, it is very important to understand.
• 30:09
  So in 2023, there's a case called West Virginia versus EPA.
• 30:13
  Not surprisingly, is EPA.
• 30:16
  And not surprisingly, it was about the clean power plan, which is a rule here that Obama administration um finalized about regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
• 30:26
  And the major questions doctrine is had existed before, but really it's been fleshed out and kind of gotten more attention recently.
• 30:37
  And the court really fleshed it out.
• 30:39
  Um basically it says that on questions of vast political and economic significance, like make really major questions, major importance.
• 31:07
  So in other words, we would we want a clear authorization from Congress.
• 31:11
  So if you're going to claim some the EPA is going to claim that they have the power to effectively kill off certain types of power plants, they would want Congress to have spoken very clearly about the fact that they wanted the EPA to do that.
• 31:27
  They're not going to make assumptions.
• 31:29
  And if it and language is just a little bit unclear or it's not, they would just want it.
• 31:34
  It needs to be clear authority on major questions.
• 31:37
  And so the argument will be, and what the arguments are is that something of this magnitude, Congress would have specifically clearly authorized these types of rules.
• 31:48
  Now, this is going to be a little Louise, but bear with me.
• 31:52
  Um there was we talked about Massachusetts versus EPA.
• 31:56
  The court did adjuve in 2007, they did address a major questions type of argument during that case, but it was nowhere near a lot has happened since 2007, particularly this West Virginia versus EPA case, but really it's fleshed it out.
• 32:14
  And I think it's changed the legal landscape here in the US.
• 32:17
  One way to look at it is it's very difficult to think that so the Supreme Court has said they shot down the clean power plan.
• 32:25
  And they said, you know, you the EPA, you you can't be like acting like the nation's grid manager and trying to shift how we produce electricity and try to get like 28% come from here and this whatever percent for there.
• 32:38
  And then, you know, if you come to that conclusion, I would argue, and I think it's a pretty compelling argument.
• 32:43
  The idea that the EPA can therefore do the same, even something even worse when it comes to new motor vehicles, makes no sense.
• 32:52
  If you're going to shoot down the clean power plan, it's very hard to see how you can have motor vehicle emission standards, you know, greenhouse gas emission standards, which inevitably require to achieve these objectives, kind of forcing people to buy EVs.
• 33:07
  So it's kind of a very similar argument.
• 33:09
  So the court in West Virginia, which is again the power plant rule, said you can't enforce fuel switching, like forcing a change in electricity.
• 33:17
  And just like that, similarly, we have a situation here where you have rules where the government, the EPA, is trying to force people into different cars.
• 33:26
  So it's kind of very similar.
• 33:27
  Um so the major question is going to be a big part of it.
• 33:30
  The other the other argument that is a major theme of the final rule is we were talking about cause and contribute and all that.
• 33:39
  I was telling you about that.
• 33:40
  When you think about whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to this global VAT of pollution, I can't put in the hair quotes, um, the pollution.
• 33:52
  Um you can't just, it's not some random arbitrary percentage that you're coming up with.
• 33:58
  You have to figure out when we look at contribute, does it actually what effect does it have on the harm that's connected to this allegedly dangerous air pollution?
• 34:08
  Well, when you look at it, if you reduce the emissions from the new motor vehicles, it would have no effect on global temperatures.
• 34:17
  And in fact, if you got, I think if you got rid of pretty much all emissions in the US, you'd have no real measurable effect on global temperatures.
• 34:27
  And then that the thing is, it's not even the temperatures that by themselves is the problem, right?
• 34:32
  It's the the alleged harms arising from the temperature.
• 34:35
  So you had the second order and third order effect connected to these emissions from new motor vehicles in the US.
• 34:42
  And so in other words, it's becomes futile.
• 34:45
  You know, it's a it there's you're not achieving anything.
• 34:48
  And so the agency is arguing that, and they're also pointing out that when we talk about contribute, somebody might think I don't know if they say it this way, but I am somebody might say, well, if it contributes to it, that could be one molecule of carbon dioxide.
• 35:02
  Well, that's not even the in the engagement finding didn't really think of it that way.
• 35:07
  They they recognize it has to be more the de minimis effect.
• 35:11
  It has to be something beyond de minimis.
• 35:14
  So if we can't even measure what effect it has, it's certainly at most de minimis.
• 35:19
  So if it's just a minimist, then that's not a sufficient contribution.
• 35:23
  So they're going to be focusing on that argument as well.
• 35:26
  Yeah.
• 35:27
  It's interesting.
• 35:28
  When Gina McCarthy, who was EPA administrator, I think under Obama, he when she was actually grilled by Congress in a hearing, what impact will the clean power plan have on world temperature?
• 35:41
  She actually gave a number.
• 35:43
  It was really tiny, it was thousandths of a degree, and or hundreds.
• 35:47
  And they said, Well, how can you justify spending X billion dollars for that tiny tiny fraction of a degree?
• 35:54
  And her answer was, well, it's going to set an example to the world because we have a worldwide problem.
• 35:59
  But that doesn't wash when it comes to legal things, does it?
• 36:03
  Can you use the Clean Air Act to control CO2?
• 36:07
  I mean, the fact that it sets an example to the world, that's kind of irrelevant, isn't it?
• 36:12
  Yes, I certainly it is.
• 36:14
  And uh, there's nothing in the Clean Air Act that says, you know, um feeling good about yourself is sufficient reason to regulate and destroy the American economy.
• 36:24
  Um, no, it's that's not a basis.
• 36:27
  And a lot of that's what happens.
• 36:28
  I mean, you start when you talk about climate policy with people, and you bring up, okay, but what effect will this actually have on global temperature?
• 36:38
  They know the answer.
• 36:38
  The answer is none.
• 36:39
  It won't have any meaningful effect.
• 36:41
  But of what any narrow policy would have, even like I said, even if you got rid of like all emissions in the US won't have a even a measureable or certainly not a meaningful effect on global temperature.
• 36:52
  So it's the question is then what are we doing this for?
• 36:54
  What's the point of this?
• 36:56
  And usually it's about virtual signaling.
• 36:58
  And they even kind of and you just brought up that example.
• 37:01
  That's really what was being said.
• 37:03
  So we can kind of lead by example, and what no, that's not to tell that to people who are struggling with affordability issues right now, or can't afford a car in the future, or can't rely that their electricity is going to come on.
• 37:20
  You know, that's that's pretty more that's a lot more important than some small group of people thinking that feeling good about themselves is actually more important than actually what effect their regulations are going to have on the American people.
• 37:34
  Yeah.
• 37:34
  So if the environmentalists get up and say, yeah, we have to save the planet, the answer is we know it doesn't accomplish anything.
• 37:42
  Well, you know, um Dr.
• 37:44
  Kevin uh Darratna, yeah, Darth Pardon of Heritage.
• 37:49
  He testified before Congress.
• 37:51
  It was either 2017 or 2020.
• 37:54
  The Cato Institute has done the same thing that said the US could eliminate all emissions, or the U.S.
• 37:59
  could literally fall off the face of the earth, and global emissions will still continue to rise because of China, India, and of course, eventually Africa.
• 38:08
  Um it's it's all such nonsense.
• 38:11
  It drives me it drives you, it drives me nuts, is what it does.
• 38:15
  Yeah, I mean, if you're a developing country, uh guess what?
• 38:19
  You don't want to be a developing country.
• 38:22
  You don't have to be developed country.
• 38:23
  You want wealth too.
• 38:25
  And that means using electricity sources that are not favored by certain so that the people that are very concerned about climate.
• 38:36
  And that just not I don't I don't even think it's ethical.
• 38:40
  Oh, I I don't either.
• 38:42
  You know, what kind of well, you certainly shouldn't dictate our pressure them into what kind of electricity sources they should use.
• 38:47
  They what we kind of had our colleagues at our industrial revolution.
• 38:52
  Um, you know, they need to have theirs and they need to develop, and we did, and yeah, we're we live in some wealthy nations in this world, and other countries want to be wealthy nations too.
• 39:04
  And we have no business telling them or trying to force them not to kind of improve the well-being of their citizens.
• 39:10
  And the way to do that is to have affordable and reliable energy.
• 39:14
  And you know, pushing these policies is kind of counter to that.
• 39:19
  And I would not expect them, any reasonable country to decide, you know, okay, we'll reduce our CO2 mission, genuinely reduce our CO2 emissions to achieve this, even at the expense of the well-being of our citizens.
• 39:32
  Yeah, you know, it's interesting.
• 39:33
  The head of the Philippines said, we're not gonna do this.
• 39:36
  This is stupid.
• 39:38
  And we need more yeah, and so I admire Trump for actually saying a lot of the things that he says, which are just plain true.
• 39:46
  Yeah, that's just I can ask you this, because I know um, and and I'm about to become uh very dangerous here because I'm actually going to try to speak like an attorney, and I'm not wasn't all of this also based on something the Chevron.
• 40:00
  Defense, and that that's what gave that's what gave U.S.
• 40:04
  administrative um, you know, to the executive branch, gave them such incredible powers.
• 40:10
  And once that just got repealed in the past year, that's what can lead to the endangerment finding.
• 40:15
  So I know I probably misquoted all of that, but I wanted to throw it to you to explain this properly.
• 40:20
  Because also I believe it also has to do with this role of this monstrous government that's spending money like beyond a hundred junk ensigners.
• 40:31
  Yeah, so for many years here in the US, we had a case called it's we refer to a chevron deference.
• 40:39
  Basically, the Supreme Court decided that when a statute is ambiguous, then they're going to defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute.
• 40:50
  Um, of statute that they the agency itself administers.
• 40:54
  To me, that is as you might when you hear that, you might think, well, isn't that kind of the course job is to actually interpret the law and not defer to some agency?
• 41:03
  And the answer is yeah, it is the court's job.
• 41:05
  And so in a recent case called Loper Bright, the court said, yeah, we're getting rid of this deference to agencies.
• 41:12
  Now, it is important to recognize in Massachusetts or EPA, the agency, I mean the Supreme Court didn't really defer the EPA when it came to whether or not greenhouse gases are an air plutonia.
• 41:25
  They they the Supreme Court just said we actually think the clean air act's clear on this, so it's not ambiguous.
• 41:31
  So they just decided it's an air pollutant.
• 41:33
  I've it's I think it was a ridiculous decision.
• 41:35
  I actually think it's the other way around.
• 41:36
  It is clear it's not an air pollutant.
• 41:39
  But regardless, but there's other things, other legal issues within this very complicated legal questions where some of the things that were argued before were likely given deference.
• 41:51
  And what what what the EPA needs to do, and for any agency, what you have to do is show that you're providing the best reading possible of the statute.
• 41:59
  So I'm not talking about necessarily the definition of an air pollutant because I think that's been resolved, at least by the court on the Clean Air Act.
• 42:06
  Um, but there's other questions as to what is covered.
• 42:10
  And and in that situation, you can't the agency can't expect the court to simply defer to what they're saying, which also means this EPA has to make a pretty compelling case.
• 42:22
  Um when they when they're interpreting the statute.
• 42:25
  Yeah.
• 42:26
  So it sounds like going back to the arguments the EPA are going to put forward.
• 42:30
  It's not likely that they're going to do a lot to say that the climate scare is bogus because there's no climate emergency.
• 42:37
  Doesn't sound like they're going to focus on that at all.
• 42:40
  They're not.
• 42:40
  In fact, they but they the language is they're basically saying it's not like we don't think there's concerns about it, but like none of this is really based on it's not based on the science.
• 42:51
  It is really all about legal arguments, and they kind of have multiple legal arguments and they're severable, which means that if one falls, the others still survive.
• 43:01
  So that's important.
• 43:03
  And so you have to kind of like throwing out, I'm sure they're throwing out a bunch of different arguments, and hopefully one of them lands.
• 43:10
  Yeah.
• 43:10
  I mean, if I'm honest, that's really what they're doing, which is what you would do.
• 43:13
  It's like here's one argument, or if you don't buy that, here's another argument.
• 43:16
  Yeah.
• 43:17
  So it sounds like it'll be valuable though for us in the background to say there's no climate emergency, the whole thing is bogus.
• 43:24
  So the public will say, Oh, come on, let's have one of these factors kill this because you know, there's nothing to really argue about.
• 43:32
  Yeah, absolutely.
• 43:33
  I I you know, the the justices are and the judges on the the lower course are human beings too.
• 43:39
  They're influenced by what's out there.
• 43:41
  And quite honestly, I think in 2007, they were influenced by a lot of the farm alarmism, is probably what happened and why we got the terrible decision that we did.
• 43:51
  Um, so yeah, we you know, we continue to need to be talking about these issues and the science and make sure that it's um the public is aware of it and understand what how harmful the policies are, especially um it's not just about the science, it's just you know it's maybe me going on a little tangent, but um a lot of people that disagree with policy choices that climate alarmists want to push, they're the climate alarmists or extremists, I should say, really want to call you a denier, climate denier simply because you disagree with their policy choices.
• 44:27
  It's not even about the science, it's just simply you don't agree with their policy choices.
• 44:30
  They try to pretend like, well, they try to conflate the two.
• 44:34
  But a lot of these arguments and a lot of the concerns is really it's not just about the science, it's about the policy choices.
• 44:41
  And I think when the public realizes how harmful these policy choices are, it's important.
• 44:46
  They they recognize they don't necessarily like going that direction.
• 44:50
  And I think it would only help to kind of gain more support for a Supreme Court opinion that ultimately if it did kind of support the Trump EPA, I think they would have more legitimacy and support here in the US if they kind of light the actual result itself, not just because of legal reasons, but because we think that that's actually the best outcome.
• 45:12
  Yeah, so it's a so it's important for us to continue to say there's no climate emergency, so the whole thing's arguing about angels on the head of a pen.
• 45:20
  Yeah, I think it's good.
• 45:21
  Yeah, yeah, it is always amazing how these things are they're they're policy choices.
• 45:27
  Or you you certainly look at the endangerment finding.
• 45:30
  I uh I I've always wanted to make this argument now that if you go if you go to blue states, which typically believe in this, look at their cost of electricity versus red states, or look at folks that are doing carbon trading.
• 45:44
  I mean, the the you know, the NERC report just came out that shows these over 50% of America is you know, in severe threat of blackout in the next couple of years.
• 45:55
  And and even somewhere like red Texas, which embraced renewables and they embrace renewables because they they believe in the theory of you know, cheat, you know, peak oil, and then they go down the endangerment finding, and you go, guys, these are policy choices, and just follow the logic behind that.
• 46:12
  You know, it it you're you're not gonna uh uh a sixth grade physics course will say you can't run an electricity system on on the sun in the wind.
• 46:22
  That's that's not controversial.
• 46:23
  I don't know why those things have become so controversial.
• 46:28
  Yeah, you know, the I didn't bring this up, but I mean the endangerment finding I mean technically practically, I mean it does deal with EPA regulation, but it's more than that, really, the 2009 engagement finding.
• 46:41
  It provides ammunition and support for those pushing these dumb policies um beyond just EPA regulation.
• 46:51
  So, yeah, I mean in the United States on the state, local and federal level, we've done pretty much everything we can to try to undermine our grid.
• 46:59
  I mean, and you're seeing the means of it.
• 47:01
  So, you know, now we're kind of waking up to it.
• 47:03
  It's like people, well, some folks I know, including myself, like, what are we doing here?
• 47:09
  Um yeah, so we have what we call a state renewable portfolio standards where there's a lot of states require a certain percentage of wind and solar to be on the grid, and just let the best energy sources win.
• 47:22
  Let's use what actually is going to ensure that we have reliable affordable electricity instead of trying again.
• 47:28
  We talk about virtuous virtue signaling, um, doing that, doing the virtual signaling.
• 47:33
  And what are you accomplishing?
• 47:34
  State, one little state, uh, what effect are you having?
• 47:38
  None.
• 47:39
  Even if all the states stopped it, what in fact?
• 47:41
  None.
• 47:42
  So it's as we always say it's pretty much all costs, no benefits.
• 47:46
  Yeah, yeah, exactly.
• 47:47
  So for the average person listening to this program who says, wow, this is crazy.
• 47:51
  I hope this rule stands up that they actually get rid of the endangerment finding for cars and trucks.
• 47:57
  What should they do?
• 47:58
  Is there anything they can do to help the courts decide or to push in that direction that we actually have a repeal of the endangerment finding?
• 48:08
  Yeah, I mean first of all, stay informed about what's happening.
• 48:12
  There's going to be other regulations.
• 48:14
  Um there's gonna be a power plant rule coming out soon as well that's gonna get rid of greenhouse gas regulations for power plants.
• 48:22
  Um, just kind of keep track of that.
• 48:24
  But also, I don't know how many opportunities there will be, like in our in here in the US, you have regulatory comment periods on rules.
• 48:31
  I don't know how many chances there will be to kind of be commenting on certain rules because basically we're already kind of gotten rid of a lot of these greenhouse gas regulations, so now it's a lot of it's in the courts.
• 48:42
  But you know, for folks that like writing and letters the editor and op eds, I think that's helpful.
• 48:48
  And Collins to talk radio, yeah, because right, yeah.
• 48:52
  That that that I find quite effective.
• 48:54
  And you know, it's interesting.
• 48:55
  If a person calls in at the beginning of a show, other people are emboldened to call in too and say, I agree with that guy.
• 49:02
  So you kind of build you build a public momentum in support of what Trump's doing, right?
• 49:08
  Yeah, that's that's a great point.
• 49:10
  And I mean, for for organizations out there that here in the US that are interested in intervening in the case.
• 49:19
  I mean, that's a legal question, and it's up to them.
• 49:21
  You gotta have standing and whatever, which means you have to actually ask them to go harm, but to intervene for folks if they're in that position and makes sense.
• 49:30
  Not a lot of groups will intervene, but a decent number will intervene here.
• 49:34
  And what's CEI doing?
• 49:36
  What's the competitive enterprise?
• 49:38
  Looking at our options and what we can do.
• 49:41
  Um, intervention is certainly possible.
• 49:44
  And we, you know, we have to kind of internally figure out what our next step is.
• 49:48
  But we CEI has been involved in this well issue forever, um, decades before the endangerment finding, kind of pushing back against international agreements and we.
• 50:00
  With climate change and also some of the hysteria and climate alarmism and other efforts, like the legislative efforts pushing back and winning and killing off legislative efforts.
• 50:12
  And certainly we have been ECI well before I got here has been arguing to revisit and rescind the endangerment findings.
• 50:20
  So this is kind of a big win for CI because we definitely have sure.
• 50:33
  Um effort and so we're thrilled thrilled about it, but it's gonna be a challenge.
• 50:39
  Um I think just like you know, again, just we there's a lot of indoctrination all over the place in schools and uh and kind of everywhere, mainstream outlets, and it's just important to be able to figure out ways to try to push back on those things because we I think that as Americans deal with expensive electricity and they realize just all the harm from these regulations and yeah and what what kind of road we're going down, I think they'll start realizing, I think they already are realizing how problematic this kind of alarmism is.
• 51:13
  So yeah, I think be willing to push back on the thing on the the extreme climate narrative that you hear.
• 51:22
  Um and unfortunately, the climate narrative is all too common.
• 51:27
  It seems to be kind of part of like any discussion you have, there's always seems to be something about climate, even if it's not uh energy.
• 51:36
  Um yeah.
• 51:37
  I got a question for you about the uh what's the current status of the Department of Energy report that gave you a climate realist point of view that was released last July from the climate working group.
• 51:51
  It's but nothing more will be done with it.
• 51:53
  Uh it it that was it.
• 51:56
  Um that report as it was released.
• 51:58
  I don't think there'll be through the deep Department of Energy, we'll not they're not gonna take the comments and make any changes.
• 52:05
  I think it's as far as I know, I think that's it for it.
• 52:08
  I by the way, I'm on the coming back to that climate question.
• 52:11
  What can you do?
• 52:12
  I I guess right, I should have pointed out because I was thinking too much about the the actual endangerment finding litigation and what's happening with legislative policies.
• 52:22
  But you know, on the state level, you know, we push back against these policies like the renewable portfolio standard and other policies that are trying to kill off reliable electricity.
• 52:33
  Same thing when it comes to on the federal level, like we we have massive subsidies for wind and solar and and we have efforts in in our country to try to kill off like natural gas hookups to building so that you can't use natural gas appliances and this is on the local level.
• 52:51
  So I I would encourage people to be involved in to this in whatever side they're on, um, to be involved and to be aware that late local state, federal level, there's just tons of efforts to try to push the climate agenda.
• 53:07
  And it's not just limited to this kind of EPA complicated rulemaking, it's all these different policies that we need to push back against.
• 53:14
  Yeah, for sure.
• 53:15
  Yeah, it it's interesting that Trump didn't do this in the first term.
• 53:18
  So what do you think's changed?
• 53:21
  Yeah, I was um yeah, disappointed um in the first term.
• 53:25
  I I thought that they should at some point have done that in the first term, but they didn't.
• 53:31
  I don't know, honestly, what's changed, except maybe a realization that there is a strong legal arguments to be had, and maybe kind of a recognition that I mean the 2009 danger finding is based on some very flawed models and emission scenarios, and unfortunately they didn't get to make that kind of argument.
• 53:53
  They didn't make that argument in this final rule.
• 53:55
  Not like they but and also I guess this time they were much better prepared for government, weren't they?
• 54:03
  Because they spent they spent years getting ready.
• 54:05
  And you know, you don't suddenly have dozens of executive orders on day one unless you were preparing.
• 54:11
  And I get the impression that in the first Trump administration, they were kind of shocked that they actually won.
• 54:16
  So they weren't real really as ready to take over as they were this time.
• 54:21
  There's no question they were more ready this time, and they were they were prepared, and they knew where they wanted well, they had they certainly I think had an idea that they wanted to at least revisit this, reconsider it, and then that was the start of it.
• 54:36
  And administrators LPP and Mr.
• 54:38
  Zeldon decided, yeah, let's move forward with reconsidering it.
• 54:41
  And we had a proposed, you know, we kind of went through the whole process, proposed rule now, the final rule.
• 54:47
  And so, yeah, it's been carefully thought through.
• 54:49
  There is um, yeah, I think that's exactly right.
• 54:52
  I think people care about helps.
• 54:54
  Yeah, well, thank goodness he won the second time around.
• 54:57
  We got a second kick at second kick at the can, and he's doing it right this time.
• 55:01
  Yeah, you know, I I think it's important for you know, you gotta for folks certainly concerned about climate alarmism, you gotta give the Trump administration a lot of credit.
• 55:12
  I don't think a lot of presidents, presidents, certainly, even Republican presidents would have done this, and to his credit President Trump is doing it.
• 55:22
  Yeah, yeah, it's it's wonderful.
• 55:24
  And yeah, I understand from William Happer, who for a year was the lead advisor to Trump on science issues and including the greenhouse gas thing.
• 55:32
  But he couldn't overcome the deep state, basically in that first year of the first administration.
• 55:38
  So something's changed.
• 55:40
  I think Trump's become a lot more bold.
• 55:42
  Trying to kill him probably made them, you know, actually say, hey, well, what else can they do?
• 55:47
  I survived that.
• 55:49
  So yeah, it's a great time for the U.S.
• 55:51
  to see these things happening.
• 55:52
  So our guest today has been attorney, Darren Bax.
• 55:56
  He's director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Compet Competitive Enterprise Institute.
• 56:01
  And how can they check out the CEI?org, CEI.org.
• 56:07
  We have all kinds of information on our website about all these issues and and a lot more issues.
• 56:13
  We really focus on trying to reform the administrative state, produce regulatory burden and market distortions and basically just promoting freedom.
• 56:22
  Yeah.
• 56:22
  And can people contribute financially to help your organization?
• 56:26
  Absolutely.
• 56:27
  Uh again, visit CI.org.
• 56:29
  Um, so yeah, we encourage you.
• 56:31
  I mean, you support what we're doing, and you know, I hope you think about contributing.
• 56:37
  Yeah, that's great.
• 56:38
  So our guest today has been Darren Basks, as I just said.
• 56:41
  And so this is Tom Harris, my co-host Todd Royal, and Darren signing out from the other side of the story.