Latest news with #pessimistic
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Indiana leaders welcome EPA's proposed rollback on climate change
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency proposed eliminating a rule that guides much of the country's ability to fight climate change during a visit July 29 to an Indianapolis auto dealership. Rescinding the pivotal 2009 air pollution guidance would eliminate greenhouse gas standards and regulations, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said at a press conference attended by Gov. Mike Braun and other state and federal officials. 'If finalized, today's announcement would amount to the largest regulatory action in the history of the United States,' Zeldin said. Environmental advocates responded, saying the move is a devastating assault on clean air protections, and will exacerbate climate change, endanger public health and even slow the economy. Braun, who formerly operated an automotive parts company now embroiled in a Clean Air Act legal battle, said he was 'tickled pink' the EPA chose to partner with Indiana — a state whose auto manufacturing industry could benefit from emission deregulation — in announcing the proposal. Zeldin claimed the original finding that allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses relied "on assumptions that ended up not being true. They ended up making predictions about the science that many respects were not just pessimistic, they turned out not to be true.' Environmental and public health advocates don't agree. In a statement, the Sierra Club said the effort to repeal was the "most direct assault thus far on the movement to mitigate the climate crisis." 'The vast majority of scientists will disagree with him,' said Meredith Hankins, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'Science has gotten stronger at demonstrating the harmful effects from greenhouse gases.' Suzanne Jawaroski, the Indiana secretary of energy and natural resources, said Indiana's model of balancing economy and emissions could now scale nationally. She didn't mention Indiana ranks below all other states for its natural environment, according to a US News report. What is the endangerment finding? Greenhouse gases weren't always classified as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Concerns about motor vehicles emissions rising throughout the early 2000s led to a petition where 19 organizations called upon the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA rejected the petition, arguing the gases weren't considered air pollutants subject to the Clean Air Act. Litigation ensued. And in 2007, the Supreme Court categorized greenhouse gases as 'without a doubt' air pollutants in a ruling leading to the endangerment finding. In 2009, the finding gave the EPA authority to regulate six greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — as threats to human health. That move contributed to regulations on emissions from cars, trucks, power plants and the oil and gas industry. The agency considered "the full weight of scientific evidence" when finalizing the finding under the Clean Air Act, and at the time, the EPA found the greenhouse gasses were dangerous to both public health and welfare for current and future generations. Then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson cited assessments from the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council as supporting evidence of the endangerment finding. "This long-overdue finding cements 2009's place in history as the year when the United States Government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform," Jackson said in a 2009 statement. "In less than 11 months, we have done more to promote clean energy and prevent climate change than happened in the last eight years." Indiana's push to stop the endangerment finding The state of Indiana has long opposed the endangerment finding. Before it was finalized in 2009, the state submitted comments to the EPA expressing disagreement over the quality of the science cited by the agency. The endangerment finding proposal "is not supported by sound science," wrote Thomas Easterly, then-head of IDEM. The state expressed disbelief that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have any direct impact on public health or welfare. After pointing to studies outlining the Earth's history of temperature fluctuation, the report argued that a clear link between climate change and greenhouse gas emissions hadn't yet been established. The state requested the EPA conduct more research before making a finding that could result in "cumbersome and costly regulatory actions" — but ultimately, the endangerment finding was finalized later that year. Since 2009, climate change research has proliferated. NASA has determined that despite the Earth's history of climatic changes, the current rate of warming is unprecedented when compared to 10,000 years of the planet's history. But Indiana hasn't stopped pushing for the deregulation of greenhouse gas emissions. IDEM Commissioner Clint Woods assisted in the completion of a chapter of The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 — a conservative vision for President Donald Trump's second term. The chapter, which focused on the EPA, recommended an "update the 2009 endangerment finding." In March, the Trump administration initiated a formal reconsideration of the endangerment finding, and this month, IDEM participated in a meeting with the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to discuss Indiana's perspective. "IDEM did not have access to the underlying proposal but shared previous State of Indiana comments on related issues, including on the '2009 Endangerment Finding,'" wrote Allen Carter, a spokesperson for IDEM. On July 25, state Rep. Beau Baird, R-Greencastle, invited Zeldin to visit Indiana to tour conservation sites and discuss environmental issues. Just four days later, Zeldin was in Indianapolis to announce a proposal to repeal the finding. Repeal provides economic benefits, some say Zeldin's tenure as EPA's administrator has been marked by deregulation in the name of economic progress. Braun and Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita both commended the administrator's efforts to align the agency with Trump's efforts in the White House. The Indiana Manufacturers Association also made a statement saying this will remove burdens that hindered economic growth. Ashton Eller, vice president of governmental affairs at IMA, wrote that burdensome regulatory actions cost jobs, drive up energy prices and are counterproductive. 'This is a significant victory for manufacturers and other large stationary sources that face burdensome regulations and increased costs under the previous framework,' Eller added. Environmental advocates say it is a step backward Several environmental organizations and Democrat lawmakers have expressed frustration with the EPA's proposal to rescind the endangerment finding. Rep. Carey Hamilton, D-Indianapolis, said repealing the rule is shortsighted from not only a human health perspective, but an economic one, too. 'China is eating our lunch when it comes to clean energy manufacturing,' Hamilton told IndyStar. 'Indiana — thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act — has significant investments going into EV battery and solar panel manufacturing.' She is concerned the proposal to rollback the endangerment finding threatens these investments and weakens Indiana's foothold in renewables as the rest of the global economy is moving away from fossil fuels. Rep. Sue Errington, D-Muncie, the ranking minority member of the House Environmental Affair Committee, said summers in Indiana are already 'hotter, longer and more dangerous than they were a decade ago." Eliminating greenhouse gas standards, she said, will accelerate climate change and harm public health. 'Environmental protections, long supported on a bipartisan basis, are now being used as a political tool," Errington said. "Hoosiers deserve better than short-term political gain at the expense of our land, water and health.' IndyStar's environmental reporting project is made possible through the generous support of the nonprofit Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Karl Schneider is an IndyStar environment reporter. You can reach him at Follow him on BlueSky @ or X @karlstartswithk. Sophie Hartley is an IndyStar environment reporter. You can reach her at or on X at @sophienhartley. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana leaders welcome EPA's proposed rollback on climate change Solve the daily Crossword
29-07-2025
- Politics
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency plans to kill this landmark 'endangerment' climate rule
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved on Tuesday to repeal a landmark environmental decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The rule, which is known as the "endangerment finding," is a 2009 declaration that determined the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, "endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations." The decision was based on a nearly 200-page EPA analysis of the science and more than 380,000 public comments on greenhouse gas pollution. On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, appointed by President Donald Trump, announced plans to repeal the endangerment finding, arguing that the EPA lacked the legal authority to determine that greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane and hydrofluorocarbons -- endanger public health and welfare. He alleged that the initial rule "made predictions about the science that was not just pessimistic, they turned out not to be true." At an event in Indiana, and joined by Gov. Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Zeldin said if the repeal of the endangerment finding is finalized, it would be "the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States" and justified the decision by saying "Agencies of this federal government do not have the ability to just creatively come up with our own law. We do not have that power on our own to decide as an agency that we are going to combat global climate change because we give ourselves that power." The endangerment finding is the result of the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which decided that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases for motor vehicles under the 1970 Clean Air Act because those gases are considered air pollutants. That ruling became the legal foundation for many of the federal government's greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles, fossil fuel power plants and other pollution sources responsible for climate change. Zeldin estimated that if finalized, the proposal could save $54 billion in costs annually and added that if Congress wanted to amend the Clean Air Act to include greenhouse gases, the EPA would regulate them. At the press conference, Zeldin also announced plans to not only repeal the endangerment finding but "all greenhouse gas emissions that followed on light, medium and heavy duty vehicles." The transportation sector is the most significant contributor of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. In 2024, the EPA determined that the vehicle model year 2027 standards currently on the chopping block were "expected to avoid 7.2 billion tons of CO2 emissions through 2055, roughly equal to four times the emissions of the entire transportation sector in 2021" and save the average driver around $6,000 in fuel costs and maintenance over the life of their vehicle. Critics of the administration's plan argue that the move to repeal the endangerment finding lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation and will exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change. The Sierra Club told ABC News in a statement that it's exploring all legal options, including litigation. "As if any doubt remained, the Trump Administration has formalized climate denial as the official policy of the United States government. If approved, rescinding the endangerment finding would strike a decisive blow to the EPA's authority to limit deadly greenhouse gas emissions and protect our people and our planet from the very worst of the climate crisis," said Loren Blackford, the Sierra Club's acting executive director. Mike Gerrard, an environmental lawyer and the founder and faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told ABC News the EPA decision to repeal the endangerment finding is the latest salvo in the Trump administration's ongoing effort to eliminate climate change regulations. "The short-term consequences are limited because the things that are enabled by the endangerment finding, they're not doing anyway. They're cutting back on the greenhouse gas emissions controls for motor vehicles. They're eliminating the regulation of greenhouse gases from power plants and other things," said Gerrard. Gerrard said lawsuits are a certainty, and it's likely that the case will end up at the Supreme Court, a court that is very different from the one that issued the 2007 ruling. "What they hope for is a binding legal outcome that would preclude, either explicitly or effectively, future regulation of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act," said Joe Goffman, the former EPA assistant administrator for its Office of Air and Radiation during the Biden administration at press briefing. In the decade and a half since that announcement, the science on how greenhouse gases impact human health has only gotten more robust. A 2021 study published in the journal Nature Climate Change found that between 1991 and 2018, 37% of heat-related deaths could be attributed to human-amplified climate change. And according to the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report that the federal government describes as providing "authoritative scientific information about climate change risks, impacts, and responses in the U.S.," found that "Climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities." The public will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule before it becomes final. Lawsuits could also delay its implementation. The courts have uniformly rejected previous attempts to challenge the endangerment finding on legal grounds.
Indianapolis Star
29-07-2025
- Automotive
- Indianapolis Star
EPA chief visits Indiana to announce repeal of landmark climate change policy
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency proposed eliminating a rule that guides much of the country's ability to fight climate change during a visit June 29 to an Indianapolis auto dealership. Rescinding the pivotal 2009 air pollution guidance would eliminate greenhouse gas standards and regulations, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said at a press conference attended by Gov. Mike Braun and other state and federal officials. 'If finalized, today's announcement would amount to the largest regulatory action in the history of the United States,' Zeldin said. Environmental advocates responded, saying the devastating move is a direct assault on clean air protections, and will exacerbate climate change, endanger public health and even slow the economy. Braun, who formerly operated an automotive parts company now embroiled in a Clean Air Act legal battle, said he was 'tickled pink' the EPA chose to partner with Indiana — a state whose auto manufacturing industry could benefit from emission deregulation — in announcing the proposal. Zeldin claimed the original finding that allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses relied "on assumptions that ended up not being true. They ended up making predictions about the science that many respects were not just pessimistic, they turned out not to be true.' Environmental and public health advocates don't agree. In a statement, the Sierra Club said the effort to repeal was the "most direct assault thus far on the movement to mitigate the climate crisis." 'The vast majority of scientists will disagree with him,' said Meredith Hankins, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'Science has gotten stronger at demonstrating the harmful effects from greenhouse gases.' Suzanne Jawaroski, the Indiana Secretary of Energy & Natural Resources, said Indiana's model of balancing economy and emissions could now scale nationally. She didn't mention Indiana ranks below all other states for its natural environment, according to a US News report. Greenhouse gases weren't always classified as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Concerns about motor vehicles emissions rising throughout the early 2000s led to a petition where 19 organizations called upon the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA rejected the petition, arguing the gases weren't considered air pollutants subject to the Clean Air Act. Litigation ensued. And in 2007, the Supreme Court categorized greenhouse gases as 'without a doubt' air pollutants in a ruling leading to the endangerment finding. In 2009, the finding gave the EPA authority to regulate six greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — as threats to human health. That move contributed to regulations on emissions from cars, trucks, power plants and the oil and gas industry. The agency considered "the full weight of scientific evidence" when finalizing the finding under the Clean Air Act, and at the time, the EPA found the greenhouse gasses were dangerous to both public health and welfare for current and future generations. Then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson cited assessments from the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council as supporting evidence of the endangerment finding. "This long-overdue finding cements 2009's place in history as the year when the United States Government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform," Jackson said in a 2009 statement. "In less than 11 months, we have done more to promote clean energy and prevent climate change than happened in the last eight years." The state of Indiana has long opposed the endangerment finding. Before it was finalized in 2009, the state submitted comments to the EPA expressing a disagreement over the quality of the science cited by the agency. The endangerment finding proposal "is not supported by sound science," wrote Thomas Easterly, then-head of IDEM. The state expressed disbelief that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have any direct impact on public health or welfare. After pointing to studies outlining the Earth's history of temperature fluctuation, the report argued that a clear link between climate change and greenhouse gas emissions hadn't yet been established. The state requested the EPA conduct more research before making a finding that could result in "cumbersome and costly regulatory actions" — but ultimately, the endangerment finding was finalized later that year. Since 2009, climate change research has proliferated. NASA has determined that despite the Earth's history of climatic changes, the current rate of warming is unprecedented when compared to 10,000 years of the planet's history. But Indiana hasn't stopped pushing for the deregulation of greenhouse gas emissions. IDEM commissioner Clint Woods assisted in the completion of a chapter of The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 — a conservative vision for President Trump's second term. The chapter, which focused on the EPA, recommended an "update the 2009 endangerment finding." In March, the Trump administration initiated a formal reconsideration of the endangerment finding, and this month, IDEM participated in a meeting with the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to discuss Indiana's perspective. "IDEM did not have access to the underlying proposal but shared previous State of Indiana comments on related issues, including on the '2009 Endangerment Finding,'" wrote Allen Carter, a spokesperson for IDEM. On July 25, State Rep. Beau Baird, R-Greencastle, invited Zeldin to visit Indiana to tour conservation sites and discuss environmental issues. Just four days later, Zeldin was in Indianapolis to announce a proposal to repeal the finding. Zeldin's tenure as EPA's administrator has been marked by deregulation in the name of economic progress. Braun and Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita both commended the administrator's efforts to align the agency with President Trump's efforts in the White House. The Indiana Manufacturers Association also made a statement saying this will remove burdens that hindered economic growth. Ashton Eller, vice president of governmental affairs at IMA, wrote that burdensome regulatory actions cost jobs, drive up energy prices and are counterproductive. 'This is a significant victory for manufacturers and other large stationary sources that face burdensome regulations and increased costs under the previous framework,' Eller added. Several environmental organizations and Democrat lawmakers have expressed frustration with the EPA's proposal to rescind the endangerment finding. Rep. Carey Hamilton, D-Indianapolis, said repealing the rule is short-sighted from not only a human health perspective, but an economic one, too. 'China is eating our lunch when it comes to clean energy manufacturing,' Hamilton told IndyStar. 'Indiana — thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act — has significant investments going into EV battery and solar panel manufacturing.' She is concerned the proposal to rollback the endangerment finding threatens these investments and weakens Indiana's foothold in renewables as the rest of the global economy is moving away from fossil fuels. Rep. Sue Errington, D-Muncie, the ranking minority member of the House Environmental Affair Committee, said summers in Indiana are already 'hotter, longer and more dangerous than they were a decade ago." Eliminating greenhouse gas standards, she said, will accelerate climate change and harm public health. 'Environmental protections, long supported on a bipartisan basis, are now being used as a political tool," Errington said. "Hoosiers deserve better than short-term political gain at the expense of our land, water and health.' IndyStar's environmental reporting project is made possible through the generous support of the nonprofit Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Karl Schneider is an IndyStar environment reporter. You can reach him at Follow him on BlueSky @ or X @karlstartswithk.
Bloomberg
29-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
PBOC Finds Consumer Mood Is Turning Darker Even as Economy Grows
Chinese households became more pessimistic last quarter and their view of the jobs market fell to the worst ever, according to a survey by the central bank, a worry for an economy that risks a slowdown ahead after growing faster than the government's target for much of this year. Consumers turned increasingly negative about income, employment, and prices in April-June, the poll showed. The release of the survey results has become unpredictable in recent years, with the data for the first and second quarters published at the same time on Friday instead of at a regular interval as in the past.
Metro
11-06-2025
- Sport
- Metro
Thomas Tuchel doesn't deserve the England hate – last night wasn't that bad
Thomas Tuchel will have been warned about the intense scrutiny England managers face before he signed up to take over from Gareth Southgate. But even the more pessimistic of his advisors would've imagined he'd make it more than four games into his tenure before seeing his team booed off… twice. It's not entirely unreasonable that a 1-0 win over Andorra and a 3-1 home loss to Senegal would disappoint fans, but the heat applied to Tuchel for those results harkens back to the bad old days of unreasonable pressure on the national team boss. 'England have gone backwards under Tuchel', according to one headline –apparently forgetting England lost four times last year, including to, no offence, Greece and Iceland. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Not for the first time, there seems to be a disconnect in what is expected of the national team and where they actually sit in the international football landscape. Everyone needs to take a breath, calm down, and remember some vital context. First, let's note that since the 2022 World Cup, the Three Lions have been held to a draw by Ukraine, North Macedonia, Slovenia and Switzerland. They've been beaten by the aforementioned Greece and Iceland, as well as a more notable loss against Brazil and that agonising Euro 2024 defeat to Spain. So for all the crowing about the world-beating talent Tuchel has at his disposal, he's inherited a team that's chronically underperformed since its high point of the delayed 2021 Euros. What he's done with that in limited time so far – three wins without conceding in his first three games, followed by last night's poor performance against Senegal – is pretty much in line with what came before. And however you slice it, the Lions of Teranga are a damn good football team right now, sitting top-20 in the FIFA world rankings and with just one loss in the 28 games since they were beaten by Southgate's England in Qatar in 2022. So the snobbery, and in my view frankly bigoted undertones in the reaction to England 'losing to an African team for the first time' has undercut the reality of a very good football team coming into England's yard and beating them fair and square in a meaningless friendly. None of this is to say that fans should be specifically encouraged by the early signs of the Tuchel era. Jordan Henderson and Kyle Walker have outstayed their welcomes by a full tournament cycle, and a new coach should've jettisoned them as his first port of call. That, and the lack of a true centre-forward on the pitch at times against Senegal, are reasonable question marks to flag up from the early days of the Tuchel era. The apparent 'lack of intensity', though, is not. Remember, the June international break is famously pointless. Unless you've made it to the Nations League final or it's a major tournament summer, all you have is a bunch of knackered players who are already planning their Ocean Beach selfies. The context around the sputtering win over Andorra and the less than impressive capitulation against Senegal doesn't forgive poor performances, but it does go a long way to explaining them. And for Tuchel, this is a long term job. Putting his stamp on a team managed by Gareth Southgate for eight years is a long process, and these are the first steps. Sadly, too much old-fashioned jingoism seems to have crept into the response to England's first foreign manager since 2012. The idea that only an English manager could possibly manage the team to wins is so bafflingly outdated that it's almost laughable, but it's been perceptible since before Tuchel was even appointed. Last night, there was much online gnashing of teeth that Lee Carsley wasn't given the job on a permanent basis after his interim stint, as the same old anti-foreign manager sentiment reared its ugly head. There's absolutely no reason on this blessed earth for Carsley to get any managerial job, not least one of the most high profile gigs in world football, over a man who was named the FIFA best coach on the planet as recently as 2021. More Trending Demanding Carlsey be appointed because 'He's English' isn't actually a good reason, not least because he's actually Irish. His Birmingham birthplace being grounds to appoint him is like giving him keys to the Wembley office because he's bald and Arne Slot has just won the league with Liverpool. Getting annoyed at people for criticising an England manager early feels a lot like shouting at a hurricane. There's nothing I, or anyone else, can do about it. I mean we've just had the best part of a decade of criticising Gareth Southgate for getting to two Euros finals and a World Cup semi-final 'the wrong way', or 'unconvincingly'. If Tuchel fails, then so be it. But at least give him some time before burying him. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: Thomas Tuchel says his mum finds Jude Bellingham's attitude 'repulsive' MORE: 'Be careful' – Emile Heskey warns £50m England star over Arsenal or Chelsea transfer MORE: Watching Blu reject Alima, it's obvious Love Island has failed Black women – again
