Day of the Inn Dweller, 45th of Childwinter, 526 M.E. (Castor): The things I do for you. Today, I completed my review of the EPA's regulatory impact analysis titled, Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards Under the Clean Air Act. Don't expect it to appear of a bestseller list any time soon.
The February 2026 report (EPA-420-R-26-002) was prepared by the EPA, as in "Environmental Protection," but you'd hardly know it by the report. Instead of attempting to refute the science behind the effect of CO₂ emissions on climate, either technically or even by simply saying, "we disagree," the so-called "regulatory impact analysis" only considers the economics of the decision to repeal the Endangerment Finding (or as Bill Mahar hilariously mispronounced it last night, the "Engagement Rule"). In short, if you don't want to read the 35-page document, it basically concludes that since U.S. consumers don't buy as many electric vehicles as other types of automobile, repealing the Endangerment Finding and its associated regulations will give buyers more "consumer choice" and lower costs for cars without emission restrictions.
Amazingly, the Environmental Protection Agency didn't consider the protection of the environment in their decision. The word "environment" only appears once in the entire document when not used as part of the agency's name, or in footnotes referring to other organizations or the titles of other reports and documents. Similarly, the word "climate" only appears three times, and one of those is merely a reference to something called the Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability at Harvard University, and another is a footnote reference to the same institute.
The third and final use of the word "climate" comes in a sentence on page 5, stating that a model for automobile production and pricing decisions should "capture how consumers make vehicle purchase and driving decisions to maximize their welfare based on their preferences for vehicle attributes (e.g., efficiency, size, speed, reliability) and travel, new and used vehicle prices, and fuel price expectations, subject to their budget constraints and any location constraints (e.g., climate, commuting options, access to fueling infrastructure, etc)." Climate, as considered here, merely considers if a consumer lives in a warm or cold region, and could easily be replaced by the term "temperature zone."
No, the report is a complete and startling abandonment of the agency's responsibility not only to protect the environment but to even consider the environment. It's an absolute dereliction of duty. The analysis simply justifies rescinding the Endangerment Finding because consumers seem to prefer gasoline-powered vehicles, and because automobiles will be cheaper without emission controls than with them. In short, it's the sort of report one might expect to see from an automobile-manufacturer trade group or the oil-and-gas lobby, but not from the EPA.
Lee Zeldin, the Long Island hack with no prior environmental experience named by the Stable Genius to head the EPA, stated a year ago that the agency's new mission is to focus not on environmental protection but on fostering economic growth, energy independence, and auto-industry expansion by prioritizing the rollback of Biden-era climate rules and cutting costs for consumers. In announcing the rescission, Zeldin said he was "driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.”
EPA's rescission of the Endangerment Finding without consideration of effect on the climate or the environment is exactly the kind of reckless and idiotic actions this godawful administration has inflicted on the citizens of these United States.









.png)

