Renewable Energy Waste Management link

air pollution in USA declined 7% in Trump first term link

Scientific case for vacating the Endangerment Finding link

Challenging the Endangerment Finding link

Will new CAFE standard kill people link

for US clean air progress EPA link

6 primary air pollutans <67% since 1980 link

countries with the least and most air pollution link

Non delegagtion doctrine could be used against the endangerment rule link

EPA rulemaking no longer will rely on secret data link

Under Obama oil and gas drilling was strictly controlled to limit it link

Reduce US CO2 emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 only reduces temps 0.018 deg C by 2100 link

countries with the least and most air pollution link

One EPA advisory board members received 192 million in funding. link

Link show how much panel of Ozone Board recieved link

1) there had been no statistically significant atmospheric warming despite a continued increase in atmospheric CO2 levels; 2) changes in global temperatures in recent decades were far from unusual; 3) new balloon and satellite data showed that the atmosphere was far less sensitive to CO2 forcing than the climate models had predicted; and 4) there was mounting evidence that EPA’s greenhouse gas rules would have no discernible climate impact

PM 2.5 levels across the U.S. have fallen 40% since 2000 as power plants and cars have become more efficient, and coal has been replaced with cleaner-burning natural gas. Only nine or so counties now don’t meet the EPA’s PM 2.5 national standard. Hence the left is now pressing the EPA to tighten PM 2.5 limits.

They know regulating PM 2.5 is a back door to restricting CO2 emissions from power plants, which the Supreme Court in 2015 blocked the Obama EPA from doing. It may be that long-term exposure to PM 2.5 modestly raises the coronavirus death risk, but more rigorous studies are needed to prove this, and shutting down fossil-fuel production now won’t save lives. It will deny livelihoods to hundreds of thousands of people.

Poor quality statistical analysis and poor quality/incomplete data aside on all PM2.5 studies  there is no biological explanation for how PM2.5 could possibly kill anyone. We know this from (1) EPA’s human experiments with high levels of PM2.5 on elderly and sick people — not a cough, gasp or wheeze from hundreds of study subjects; (2) Previous episodes of severe fatal air pollution (1930, 1948 and 1952) — all deaths cause by acidic gases trapped by temperature inversions; (3) current experiences with heavy PM2.5 in China and India — lots of PM2.5 no deaths; (4) Real-life experience of coal miners and other workers exposed to lots of PM — they live longer than workers with lower PM2.5 exposures; and (5) the smoking epidemiology.  This utter absence of biological plausibility for how PM2.5 could cause death ends all discussion about PM2.5 killing anyone. 

 Communist China purchased and the Harvard School fo Public Health in 2014 for $350 million, renaming it the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The lead investigator on the PM2.5/COVD10 study is a Chinese national, as is the case with many of the PM2.5 studies coming out of Harvard. Prior to there 2018 election, Congress was investigating whether China was funding US green groups (like NRDC) to wreck the US economy via advocacy. Ex-Obama EPA administrator Gina McCarthy is a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and chief of NRDC.

Over the period of the study, the U.S. has had far lower fine particulate matter levels than nearly any country on earth. At present, U.S. concentrations are less than one-sixth the global average, and dramatically below countries with far higher and lower death rates from COVID-19 (seven times below China, five times below Iran, three times below South Korea, and roughly half of particulate matter levels in Italy and Germany).