But I would wager long-term large-scale changes to investment/spend is unlikely, especially if the mid-terms swing blue.
- withdrawing the legal scaffolding that allowed the EPA to regulate emissions seems unnecessary if your EPA is already willing to just not actively regulate emissions?
- and the Trump administration has been surprisingly/concerningly successful when just ignoring the law regardless, so why does this corner of regulatory law matter?
It's more about propaganda and fodder for lawmakers who will try to use it to justify fossil fuel promotion legislation.
It's not fooling anyone though. Most of the world - including the US - is well aware of that increasing GHGs are warming the atmosphere. Those whose livelihood depends on existing climate patterns is already feeling the effects.
Some just don't care because they believe they are insulated from the effects, and gain huge amounts of wealth and power from a short term boost in fossil fuel demand. In their fever dream, they might wish that the world at large somehow forgets the physics of GHG emissions, but that's unlikely.
The big question I have, are there any corresponding agencies in the EU or China we should be paying attention to
jjgreen•1h ago