Energy Deliverance
I have often warned my readers that giving the government a tool invariably leads to its expansive misuse at some future point. This phenomenon has no formal name, near as I can tell. While the Intertubes suggest “ratchet effect,” I find that banal. If you’ve got an idea, drop it in the comments.
One egregious example that has landed in the news is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 “finding” that expanded the government’s powers under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide and methane. Empowered by a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 (Massachusetts v. EPA, decided 5-4 along the usual lines), the Obama-led EPA declared war on the nation’s energy supply, in pursuit of a Quixotic and immensely destructive anti-carbon agenda.
The CAA, enacted in 1970 and updated in 1977 and 1990, was not intended to address global warming. Yes, global warming was already a “thing” when it was enacted, but the CAA was aimed at obvious pollutants such as ozone, lead, sulphur dioxide, particulates, CFCs, and carbon monoxide. In contrast, carbon dioxide is fundamental to life on the planet. But, because “green” was both en vogue and a wonderfully useful lever to expand government power, Obama and his ilk pursued - and got - the power to use it as an excuse to regulate the ever-living [redacted] out of every aspect of our lives.
All to no good effect. The BRICS nations and the rest of the developing world - indeed - the entire world apart from the US, Canada, and Western Europe, are pursuing energy policy with nothing but lip service to the “climate crisis” crowd’s admonitions. Even if the threat from rising levels of atmosphere carbon dioxide proves to be real and significant, America and Europe destroying their economies is not the answer. Meanwhile, the climate scare is further collapsing with every passing day. Prediction after prediction has failed to come true, and the science that was “settled” is being questioned - justifiably - more and more. This doesn’t mean that human carbon emissions aren’t warming the planet, but it supports the benign, “lukewarm” conclusion rather than the catastrophic one.
When Trump won his second term, one of the positives I predicted was a restoration of sanity in energy policy. And, sure enough, he delivered. Not perfectly or to the extent I want (yet. He’s got 3 more years), but well enough to benefit Americans in many ways. Even more so when we consider what Harris’s administration would have delivered.
The latest is a repeal of the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding. Of course, this repeal is being touted as catastrophic to people, to their pockets, to their health, and to the planet itself.
The caterwauling, which was already at eleven, is cranking up even higher.
Repealing the “historic” “landmark” ruling “revokes key research,” “announces end of scientific basis,” “blew up a load-bearing pillar of climate regulation,” is a “gift to billionaire polluters,” “delivers a deadly blow,” rejects “settled science,” “killed the EPA’s ability to fight climate change,” “unravels climate protections,” “drive stake through federal climate protections.” And more.
Spare me.
Congresswoman and Squad member Rashida Tlaib is “furious.” Which is, as far as I’m concerned, a ringing endorsement of the repeal.
The Trump administration predicts $1.3T in savings to consumers from the deregulation that will result from the repeal. The usual suspects, on the other hand, predict over a trillion in cost increases. While some increase will result from relaxed fuel efficiency standards, bear in mind that nothing stops a consumer from buying a high-mileage car or an EV even after deregulation. A voluntary decision to buy a lower-efficiency vehicle is just that - voluntary. Not a government-imposed cost increase.
Beyond that, what are you more likely to believe, that deregulation increases costs or decreases them?
I predicted Trump’s second term to be a mixed bag, and it has been. A mixed bag does contain goodies, though many prefer to fixate solely on the lumps of coal. Among the best of those goodies is a deliverance from energy insanity and a people-first attitude toward government regulation and interference. Good Trump.
A footnote. Ponder this Letter To The Editor from the 2/17/26 edition of the NY Post.
This is pure Dunning-Kruger on display. First off - mandates that make vehicles more expensive (which higher mileage/emissions requirements do) does not make them “more competitive.” Consumers that want high mpg/low emission vehicles will choose to buy them of their own free will, so all mandates do is force other people to buy what they don’t want. Second, cars built for foreign markets will conform to foreign emissions rules. Third, “climate extremes” are simply not happening. In fact, we are seeing the opposite when it comes to extreme weather events. Overall warming is proving to be below almost all the predictions, and the planet is actually getting greener.
But, inconvenient truths have never been an obstacle to climate catastrophe arrogance. Instead, erroneous predictions get retconned away.
Wind and solar was pushed by China, of course, for a nonexistent problem - one which had to be invented out of whole cloth. Why would the CCP have been so interested in pushing the AGW scam in the West, one wonders? Fossil fuels aren't unlimited of course - but certainly plentiful enough to bridge us to modern alternatives.
Just ONE containerized micro nuke, currently licensed technology in production now, replaces either 500 acres of solar generation, or roughly NINE wind generators. The micro nuke availability target is 90-95% with scheduled downtime - versus wind (<50) and solar (<30) with unpredictable downtime. And wind/solar is maintenance intensive, and efficiency declines, versus the micro nuke, which operate with continuous reliability and has no loss over the fuel cycle. And that's today's, currently licensable technology. Much better, more scalable solutions are in development - with CURRENT technology. No "breakthrough" required.
And before anybody leaps on "safety" - these SMR micro nukes bear no resemblance to the massive, centralized 1970s era plants, which rely on highly enriched uranium. SMRs operate with very low enriched, encapsulated fuel pellets (look up TRISO) that are worthless as a source for weapons. And there are no moving parts on the fuel side. They don't have to be buried or encased in concrete or "guarded" - just place them on a concrete pad and connect them to the grid.
I DO want clean air, clean water, etc., and for the planet NOT to be fried. But we all must resist the idea that, given any problem, real or imagined, the solution is always bigger government. Creating more rules, more regulations, and more bureaucracy is the worst possible way to accomplish anything good.