EPA is said to draft a plan to end its ability to fight climate change
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The EPA intends to argue that imposing climate regulations on automakers poses the real harm to human health because it would lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice, according to the two people familiar with the administration's plan. They asked to remain anonymous because they weren't authorized to discuss the draft proposal.
Advertisement
The draft proposal could still undergo changes. But if it is approved by the White House and formally released, the public would have an opportunity to weigh in before it is made final, likely later this year.
Molly Vaseliou, a spokesperson for the EPA, did not confirm the details of the plan. In a statement she said the EPA sent the draft proposal to the White House on June 30, and that it 'will be published for public notice and comment once it has completed interagency review and been signed by the Administrator.'
Advertisement
If the Trump administration is able to repeal the endangerment finding, it would not only erase all current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources. It would prevent future administrations from trying to tackle climate change, with lasting implications.
'The White House is trying to turn back the clock and re-litigate both the science and the law,' said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental group. She called the evidence that climate change is harmful 'overwhelming and incontrovertible.'
Since taking office, President Donald Trump has abandoned U.S. efforts to tackle global warming. He also has moved to roll back virtually every federal policy aimed at curbing greenhouse gases from the burning of oil, gas and coal. His administration has encouraged more production and use of fossil fuels while stifling the growth of clean energy and electric vehicles.
In calling to repeal the endangerment finding, the draft EPA rule does not appear to focus on the science or try to make the case that fossil fuels aren't warming the planet.
Instead, it argues that the EPA overstepped its legal authority under the Clean Air Act by making a broad finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public welfare. It makes the case that the EPA administrator has limited power that apply only to specific circumstances.
Joseph Goffman, who led the air office at the EPA under the Biden administration, said the rule would all but certainly face legal challenges if it is finalized.
Advertisement
He said the Trump administration's proposed rule conflicts with the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. E.P.A., a landmark case that found for the first time that greenhouse gases were a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That led the EPA to make the finding in 2009 that said that six greenhouse gases were harming public health.
In more than 200 pages, the EPA at that time outlined the science and detailed how increasingly severe heat waves, storms and droughts were expected to contribute to higher rates of death and disease.
This article originally appeared in
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Edmunds
39 minutes ago
- Edmunds
Tested: 2025 Nissan Murano Is Better With Fewer Cylinders
The new engine makes a bit less power than last year — 241 horsepower vs. 260 horsepower for the V6 — but torque output is up to 260 lb-ft, an increase of 20 lb-ft over the V6. Despite the reduction in cylinder count, the EPA's combined fuel economy rating disappointingly remains the same as before at 23 mpg (21 city/27 highway) with either front- or all-wheel drive. I'm not saying the new engine is an unwelcome change, but don't expect an improvement in fuel economy. What I did see was an improvement in performance. Our test car was a loaded Murano Platinum, which is great as the last Murano we tested was also a loaded Platinum trim. This test vehicle was exactly 300 pounds heavier than that last one (4,388 pounds vs. 4,088 pounds), but it proved to be significantly quicker anyway. The new Murano sprinted from 0 to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds, 0.7 second quicker than the last Murano that graced our test track. The new Murano's quarter-mile time of 15.5 seconds at 90.9 mph is half a second better.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Social Security Is Owed Tens of Billions of Dollars, and the Donald Trump Administration Aims to Collect. Will Your Benefit Be Garnished?
Key Points President Donald Trump has been the catalyst for a number of changes to America's leading retirement program during his second term. His administration has overseen the reversal of a Biden-era policy on Social Security overpayments, resulting in a more aggressive 50% clawback rate. Overpaid beneficiaries have a trio of options at their disposal to potentially waive their liability or meaningfully reduce what they owe. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › For most retirees, their Social Security income is indispensable. When surveyed by national pollster Gallup in April, 86% of retirees said that their monthly check is a "major" or "minor" income source. In other words, it's a necessity, to some varied degree, to make ends meet. However, this all-important retirement program isn't on the best financial footing. Based on the latest Social Security Board of Trustees Report, the program is staring down a $25.1 trillion long-term (75-year) funding deficit, as well as the prospect of sweeping benefit cuts coming into play just eight years from now. If nothing is done, retired workers and survivor beneficiaries can see their monthly payouts slashed by up to 23% in 2033. President Trump has overseen a flurry of Social Security changes since taking office Although politicians often shy away from tackling issues with Social Security since it can cost them votes in upcoming elections, President Donald Trump's administration hasn't veered away from making big changes to America's top retirement program. Since beginning his second (nonconsecutive) term, Trump signed an executive order eliminating paper checks by Sept. 30, 2025. All federal distributions will need to be digitized (e.g., through direct deposit) in order to save costs, as well as reduce the possibility of fraud. And the president has overseen the revamp of personal identification methods via the Social Security Administration (SSA). For example, changing your direct deposit information (with few exceptions) will require an in-person visit to the SSA or two-factor authentication via a "my Social Security" account. Furthermore, Trump is responsible for the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which preempted the SSA to announce a reduction of 7,000 employees and the shuttering of some of its offices. These actions fit with the Trump administration's theme of reining in federal costs and making Capitol Hill more efficient. But this isn't all. Making Washington, D.C., more efficient includes Social Security's trust funds, and not just the program's administrative expenses. America's leading retirement program is owed tens of billions of dollars -- and the Trump administration aims to collect. The question is: Are you one of the more than 1 million beneficiaries who could see their Social Security benefit garnished by the SSA? The Trump administration has placed a bull's-eye on Social Security overpayments If there's such a thing as a clear target for the SSA and Trump administration, it's collecting the $23 billion in Social Security overpayments that were outstanding at the end of fiscal 2023 (Sept. 30, 2023). According to data from health policy researcher KFF and Cox Media Group, nearly 2 million beneficiaries had been overpaid. Sometimes these overpayments are entirely the SSA's fault. Other times, responsibility lies with beneficiaries not updating their income information with the SSA, thereby resulting in an overpayment. Prior to the pandemic, the clawback rate on Social Security overpayments stood at 100%. This means President Trump's first term featured a 100% garnishment rate for Social Security checks until an overpayment was fully recouped. However, this garnishment rate was lowered to just 10% per benefit check during Joe Biden's presidency (which coincided with the pandemic). Although the SSA announced plans to reinstate the 100% clawback rate in March, public backlash caused the agency to rethink this strategy and amend its garnishment rate to 50% in April. With the SSA beginning to send out 90-day notices on April 25, overpayment garnishments for potentially more than 1 million beneficiaries began on July 24. If there's a silver lining for these folks, it's that legal options do exist that can potentially waive or reduce what they owe the SSA: SSA-632BK ("Request for Waiver of Overpayment Recovery"): The best outcome would be to have your overpayment from the SSA completely waived. Filing Form SSA-632BK makes sense if the overpayment you received wasn't your fault and you can provide documentation that paying back the extra benefits would cause a financial hardship. SSA-561 ("Request for Reconsideration"): Going this route makes sense if you can provide evidence that you weren't overpaid and want your liability waived. Form SSA-561 is also an option if you agree that you've been overpaid but are contesting how much in extra benefits you received. SSA-634 ("Request for Change in Overpayment Recovery Rate"): Filing Form SSA-634 is the way to go if you admit to being overpaid, but can demonstrate a financial hardship to the SSA with qualified expenses. In other words, you're still going to have to repay the extra benefits you've received, but this route may allow you to work out an extended payment plan that lowers the garnishment rate from 50% to a more palatable percentage. With the Biden-era recovery rate a thing of the past, more beneficiaries can expect a significant haircut to their monthly check if they don't opt for one of these three perfectly legal options to potentially waive or reduce what they owe. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Is Owed Tens of Billions of Dollars, and the Donald Trump Administration Aims to Collect. Will Your Benefit Be Garnished? was originally published by The Motley Fool
Wall Street Journal
10 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Trump Administration's New Take on Climate Change - Opinion: Potomac Watch
Full Transcript This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated. Speaker 1: From the Opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Kyle Peterson: The Trump administration moves to repeal the so-called endangerment finding, which is a linchpin of regulations of federal greenhouse gas emissions. Meantime, the Energy Department releases a report with a new view of climate change from the federal government. Welcome, I'm Kyle Peterson with the Wall Street Journal. We are joined today by my colleagues, columnist Allysia Finley and Kim Strassel. The endangerment finding is what underlies a lot of federal regulations of greenhouse gas emissions, but the Environmental Protection Agency is now moving to undo that. Let's listen to Energy Secretary Chris Wright discussing that this week. Chris Wright: When I heard the endangerment finding announcement 17 years ago, that they had found, as someone who was already involved in the climate discussion, was already involved in the energy world, clearly they didn't look at the data. They didn't understand climate change. They didn't appreciate how energy works. But this ruling happened, and it happened because they couldn't do it through the House and the Senate and the presidency, the normal lawmaking process. They found a backdoor way to take away your freedom and to make your life more expensive and shrink your life opportunities. Kyle Peterson: Allysia, give us some of the background here. What is this endangerment finding, and why is it so important to a lot of the regulations that have taken place over those past 17 years in Washington? Allysia Finley: So this endangerment finding goes back to 2007 Supreme Court case, in which you have many Democratic states sued the Bush administration and claimed that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions, because they are a pollutant that endangers the public health and welfare. Now, the Clean Air Act only gives express authority to the EPA to regulate what are known as six criteria pollutants, and these are things that clearly do harm to human health, can make you sick, for instance, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, ozone. These have direct effects on human health. Now, what the Supreme Court ruled was, well, okay, but we're going to order the EPA, they have an obligation to review all the evidence, nonetheless, to consider whether greenhouse gas emissions, which the justices deemed an air pollutant under a very broad, capacious interpretation of the law, endangers human health and welfare. And not surprisingly, the Obama administration came back in 2009, said, well, we do think that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare, and they provided a ream of cherry-picked studies that claim, well, greenhouse gas emissions, through indirect effects, increase global warming and can affect the climate, and that therefore can harm human health, safety. Rising sea levels, higher temperatures can increase perhaps allergies and the spread of diseases. Even though there's a lot of uncertainty, and for the most part, there's a lot of uncertainty about these claims. And for the most part, they really haven't been borne out by more rigorous studies. And so, this 2009 endangerment finding therefore provided the pretext for the EPA to go in and regulate greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy. Now, the Obama administration focused more on the vehicle tailpipe emissions, so to restrict or limit how much CO2 can be emitted by cars, and this ended up becoming essentially a back door EV mandate that was begun under Obama and continued under Biden. What it also did was, it embarked on its clean power plan that effectively forced coal and natural gas plants to shut down because they didn't meet the greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants, and the other kind of kink in this role was that it would've required these fossil fuel plants to subsidize renewable plants. Now, you'll recall that the Supreme Court eventually ruled in 2022 that the Clean power plant under Obama was unlawful, that the EPA didn't even have the authority to do it, but they didn't address this broader question of whether EPA even has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And so, now with the Trump EPA, Lee Zeldin is coming out and saying, no, we actually don't think we do have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Kyle Peterson: To underline that point, this is some of the language that the Supreme Court was looking at in the Clean Air Act in that Massachusetts VEPA ruling. It says that the EPA "shall regulate any emissions of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles which in the EPA administrator's judgment shall contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." So, the two questions here, Kim. First, the Supreme Court said in that 5-4 decision that the Clean Air Act and that language does apply to greenhouse gases that may be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. And then the EPA, as Allysia describes, went back and found that that endangerment was, in fact, happening. But part of the argument here is that this is not a pollutant in the way that Congress might have been thinking about that when it passed the Clean Air Act initially. Greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, are not, things get spewed out into the air and you breathe them in and they make you sick. And so, I assume that that's part of the argument from the Trump administration here, is that we are going back to what we think was originally meant by Congress and these lawmakers when they passed the Clean Air Act in the first place. Kim Strassel: Something to know about that 2007 decision that Allysia referenced, which is that it was a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, a very close run thing. And this was a very different court that made the decision. I mean, this was back in the days with swing votes of Anthony Kennedy, et cetera. And it was deeply criticized, because if you actually read the clear text of the Clean Air Act, there is no mention of greenhouse gases. So this was very much the court saying, well, we're going to take the kind of living statute approach here and just now say it's okay to also include this. When in reality, those of us out there always argued, if Congress really believed something, an issue this large was something that Congress wants to have addressed via the Clean Air Act or by a new statute, it should have to pass legislation. But that's what ended up happening. Now, of course, remember we've got a very, very different court these days, and that's crucial to the argument that the Zeldin EPA is making, is that under the new majority that we've had, they have talked a lot about, for instance, the Major Questions doctrine and this argument that you can't go hiding elephants in mouse holes, and that if Congress didn't specifically say something, then most likely the bureaucrats do not have the authority. And so, that's the fundamental rationale that Zeldin used as he put this out and said, under our judgment, looking again at more recent Supreme Court findings and rulings, we don't think that we actually have the authority to go this far. Because one other thing I just want to clarify, because it's very confusing to a lot of people, and it's deliberate on behalf of climate activists, is they like to make it sound as though greenhouse gases are pollution, and they're not. There is nothing wrong with CO2. It does not cause health problems, as Allysia noted. It's a very different category of everything else that is regulated under the Clean Air Act. And in fact, just a funny thing, to a certain extent, to the degree that we have those other pollutants and they create, for instance, things like smog, which CO2 does not do, scientists actually believe that smog has an, interestingly, a cooling effect on the planet to a certain degree. Not that we should want more of it, but what I am saying is that actual pollution is not contributing to global warming. Kyle Peterson: Hang tight. We'll be right back in a moment. Welcome back. Allysia, on the point of the legal lay of the land here, I've seen some skeptics, and not on the left, but on the right saying that because there is this record of a decade and a half of the EPA talking about the endangerment of climate change, that any attempt to reverse that by the Trump administration might get tangled up in the courts. What do you make of that objection to this? And could this be, would this be, should this be, I mean, is there going to be an opportunity maybe for the Supreme Court at some point to take another look at that 5-4 Massachusetts VEPA ruling, and another consideration, with new, more Originalist, Textualist justices, to consider what a pollutant under the Clean Air Act actually is? Allysia Finley: Right. So I think the Trump administration is hoping to tee this up, Massachusetts VEPA to tee this up, to reconsider whether the EPA even has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as pollutants. And to Kim's point, this seemed to be a major questions that should be left for Congress. Now, what I would expect to happen is, I expect the Democratic states and maybe some climate groups will sue and challenge the EPA once an administrative result comes out with the final finding of rescinding the endangerment finding. And then there's going to be a couple questions here. One, do those Democratic and climate groups even have standing, legal standing to sue in federal court? I raise that because actually, at the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts VEPA case, you had the conservatives hold that the Democratic states didn't have standing to challenge the EPA's failure to regulate. So courts could actually just hold that while these states don't even have standing to sue, or climate groups don't have standing to sue because they haven't been directly harmed by the rescission of this endangerment findings. So that's one possibility. Now, the other possibility is they find that they do, or the federal courts, lower courts do, and then this kicks it up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court now, they may also revisit that standing question. But they also have an opportunity to revisit this Massachusetts VEPA decision and extend their major questions doctrine here. And what I think is really important to recall and remember is that Democrats in Congress in 2009 did seek to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. There was a cap and trade program that they were trying to pass. It passed the House. It died in the Senate, as it turns out, because there was opposition from Democrats at the time in the Senate, blue dog Democrats from states like Arkansas, Indiana, who didn't want to walk that plank, and you had the famous Joe Manchin ad in 2010 vowing to that he'd shoot the cap and trade bill. And so, this is relevant because it shows that this really is a question that Congress should and did attempt to address. They just didn't have the political support to do it at the time. And what the Obama administration did is, they basically did an end run around Congress. Kyle Peterson: In the meantime this week, the energy Department also released a report on climate change. It is titled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate, written by five Ph.D.s. Kim, this is part of what you talk about in your column on Friday under the headline, the Rise of the Climate Right, and later you talk about energy Secretary Chris Wright rallying the nascent climate right. So, give us a sense of what do you mean by, what is the climate, right? Kim Strassel: Well, this report, just to put this in context, I think is really important, because it actually goes hand in hand with what the EPA did. That's why they were released simultaneously. If the EPA ruling the rescission of the endangerment finding was essentially taking away the legal authority of the federal government to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant, this report was seeking to reframe the science that the federal government has depended on under the Obama and Biden administrations as a justification to take the very extreme steps that they did. And Chris Wright's complaint has been that a lot of that data was cherry-picked to just show worst case scenarios, and that one problem is that the American public has not really heard the truth about the totality of climate science, which is that it's deeply unsettled. There are so many questions that we don't really have answers to, and this media narrative that you hear constant, this drumbeat in the New York Times and elsewhere that we're headed toward a doomsday catastrophe scenario is not justified if you actually even look at the IPCC reports and other things. If you go look at the data, it shows much more profoundly that uncertainty and the big questions and the variations that are out there. And the reason I think this is important politically... That's a question of policy, the report itself, and it's a good report, I do suggest people read it. But politically, if you look back over the history of the last 30 or 40 years, the conservative movement has somewhat struggled about how to handle these climate wars, and for a long time, they simply rejected the argument that the earth was warming, and thus leading to the term climate denier. Obviously, as the planet has warmed some, that's been a harder position to hold, and so then they kind of moved to trying to say, this is just too expensive for us to do, and attacking the Democrats on that part. That was, in fact, played a huge role in it being shot down in the Senate back in 2010, the episode Allysia was talking about. It was effective political strategy, but not a long-term one, because as this narrative has grown, this incomplete narrative, mostly by the press and activists. People became more and more worried about this. And this marks the first time, I would argue, that you've had an elected leader in an administration that's now willing to completely go toe to toe with the left instead on the science, and to say, yes, our climate is changing. Nobody is denying that, and if you read the report, it makes it very clear. But here's all the stuff that you guys have not heard yet, and it is not part of the debate that needs to be. For instance, that there are aspects of global warming that are beneficial, including to agricultural production. That we still do not know yet the extent to which humans play a role in climate change. That our models are all over the map, and the fact that we can't get agreement on them is kind of concerning, because it means we're doing a lot of guesswork. That climate change has not had much of an economic impact, nor is it expected to have much an economic impact. And, I think this is an important one, that even if the United States takes drastic climate policy action, it will have a negligible or no effect in global climate questions. So, report's out there, but I just think both from a policy perspective and a political perspective, this marked a little bit of a moment. Kyle Peterson: Hang tight. We'll be right back after one more break. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker, "Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast." Speaker 1: From the Opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac watch. Kyle Peterson: Welcome back. This report is quite in the weeds on some of these questions about uncertainty in climate modeling. It talks about the changing pH of ocean water, for example, often called ocean acidification. They take issue with that term. But notable, this is a section from the foreword by the energy secretary. He writes, "Climate change is real and it deserves attention, but it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty." He goes on to say, "Climate change is a challenge, not a catastrophe, but misguided policies based on fear rather than facts could truly endanger human wellbeing," unquote. Allysia, I guess my read of this is, the report will be taken for what it is. I mean, government agencies often issue reports. People can read them or not read them. They can have that effect. But it is an interesting statement about the energy secretary and the US government's view potentially of its policy and its approach toward these issues, again, emphasizing in the energy secretary's view that climate change is real and it is a challenge, but it is one that does not necessitate some of the policy changes that have been pushed in recent years, and particularly the idea in some quarters that the response to climate change needs to be pushing back people's standard of living by maybe years or decades. Allysia Finley: Well, I think all that's right. The Trump administration really wants to focus on improving standards of living, and the best way, in the US and abroad, the best way to do that is probably to unleash cheap natural gas and boost production. That's also, by the way, if you really care about climate change, that's the least expensive, most technologically feasible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But to the broader point, cold weather kills many more people than hot weather does, and so, providing cheap sources of fuel will reduce the number of deaths. And not only that, providing more cheap, abundant energy will allow more electrification. And what I mean electrification, there are many people in sub-Saharan Africa and very poor areas of the world that still don't actually have connection to electricity. And so, therefore, forget about air conditioning or many sanitation. Sanitation requires electricity, too. By connecting these people to the grid, and the easiest way to do that is with fossil fuels, not by building huge solar plants that can't run at all hours of the day. By expanding fossil fuel production, you're actually helping to improve living standards in many places of the world that are currently very poor and suffering diseases and other results of that poverty. Now, back in the US, and what you've been seeing is that energy, or electricity prices in particular, have been increasing over the last four or five years as a result of the administration's policies to promote solar, wind, batteries, notwithstanding all these subsidies going into those areas. That electricity prices have been increasing, and as a result, you're actually having people one fall behind on their utility payments, and two, having to swelter in the heat during heat waves and cut back on their consumption because of the rising prices. And this really, by the way, threatens to row ,living standards, but also US economic growth and manufacturing activity, because one of the largest inputs, or largest cost from manufacturers, is electricity and natural gas. Kyle Peterson: The other thing that always strikes me about the politics around this, Kim, is I don't doubt the sincerity of some of the activists who are saying that climate change is a real, serious threat, needs to be taken more seriously, Al Gore and whatnot. But even after years and decades of that drumbeat, they have not convinced the public of that, or at least to take on added costs to their day-to-day budgets to do that. And you see that whenever there are referendums, votes, ballot initiatives on climate taxes, green taxes, carbon fees and whatnot. Even in pretty blue jurisdictions in the Pacific Northwest and stuff, those things seem to go down by pretty significant margins. There must be people in those states who are voting blue and voting for Democrats for governor because those are the politicians who are running those states, and are nevertheless coming out to the ballot box to oppose those kinds of measures that would add costs to their daily budget and make their lives more difficult. Kim Strassel: If you want a case study in consumer rejection of more full-scale greenhouse gas reduction policies, look to Europe at the moment, where the politicians that have made energy production there extremely expensive and unstable are getting a lot of backlash over their emissions that they have put into effect in recent years. And I think it's a good warning for here in the United States. We've had a couple of our own warnings. Allysia has written brilliantly about some of the blackouts we've seen and grid instability, a lot of which has come from poorly thought through renewable energy projects, et cetera, in places like Texas and elsewhere. And we were headed toward a situation like Europe, which is under the Biden administration, which is why I think it's so important. This Trump administration has not been shy about saying, look, we need to care about resilience. We need to care about stability. We need to care about affordable energy. Chris Wright, who you mentioned and Allysia was talking about, and global energy poverty, this was a mission of his. For much of his adult life, he's had a nonprofit devoted to this that he ran via his company, Liberty Energy, before he came to be the Department of Energy Secretary. And just talking about all of the problems that so many average people around the globe face because of a lack of any affordable energy out there. And this gets to the bigger point too, about the problems of this narrative, which is that they tend to warp the discussion and then make it harder for us to have good priorities in policymaking and decision. And it's just very important that people start to push back, because in recent years, especially under the Biden administration, I mean, it's almost become absurd, the level of manipulated and distorted and incorrect climate reporting out there, that is providing this scary, scary scenario that is simply not supported by what we know at all. And that message needs to get out to more Americans, and this was a good starting point this week. Kyle Peterson: Thank you, Kim and Allysia. Thank you all for listening. You can email us at PWPodcast@ If you like the show, please hit that subscribe button, and we'll be back next week with another edition of Potomac Watch.
