Señor Trumpanzee’s Ministry of Pollution: Lee Zeldin’s EPA And The Toxic Climate of Denial

3 Senate Dems Played With Environmental Arson— They Need To Pay Along With The GOP

John Fetterman (PA), Ruben Gallego (AZ) and Mark Kelly (AZ) voted to confirm more of Trump’s unqualified nominees than any other Democrats in the Senate— except Michigan conservative Elissa Slotkin but even Slotkin voted against Lee Zeldin to become EPA Administrator. Every single Republican voted to confirm him as well, though only an idiot could have been unaware of Zeldin’s dangerous environmental agenda. After all, during his tenure in the House, Zeldin received a lifetime score of just 14% from the League of Conservation Voters— the lowest among New York's congressional delegation— reflecting his opposition to, among other things, curbing methane emissions and replacing lead service lines. He also voted to slash EPA funding and supported repealing the Clean Water Rule, despite his own Suffolk County district's struggles with water contamination. At his confirmation hearing, he downplayed the EPA's role in addressing climate change and defended significant budget cuts that will exacerbate pollution and public health risks. Asked by Sheldon Whitehouse on basic climate science, such as the impact of carbon dioxide emissions, during the hearing, he deflected, stating he was “not a scientist” and deferred to experts, avoiding clear commitments to science-based climate action. He also expressed intent to “look into” clawing back Inflation Reduction Act funds, which support clean energy and climate initiatives, aligning with an agenda to roll back Biden-era regulations like tailpipe emissions rules, as confirmed by his vague responses to questions about vehicle standards and climate tipping points. This pattern of opposing key environmental policies and evading specific commitments during testimony proved a prioritization of deregulation and industry interests over environmental stewardship, apparently not enough though for Fetterman, Gallego and Kelly.

Yesterday, Lisa Friedman updated NY Times readers on the inevitable from the EPA head. Zeldin had his agency draft “a plan to eliminate all limits on greenhouse gases from coal and gas-fired power plants in the United States… In its proposed regulation, the agency argued that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants that burn fossil fuels ‘do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution’ or to climate change because they are a small and declining share of global emissions. Eliminating those emissions would have no meaningful effect on public health and welfare, the agency said. But in the United States, the power sector was the second biggest source of greenhouse gases, behind transportation, according to the most recent data available on the EPA website. And globally, power plants account for about 30 percent of the pollution that is driving climate change.”

The proposed regulation is part of a broader attack by the Trump administration on the established science that greenhouse gases threaten human health and the environment. Scientists have overwhelmingly concluded that carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases from the burning of oil, gas and coal are dangerously heating the planet.

“Fossil fuel power plants are the single largest industrial source of climate destabilizing carbon dioxide in the United States, and emit pollution levels that exceed the vast majority of countries in the world,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental group.

She called the proposed regulation “an abuse of the EPA’s responsibility under the law” and added, “It flies in the face of common sense and puts millions of people in harms way to say the single largest industrial source of carbon dioxide in the United States is not significant.”

… [T]he agency “is proposing to repeal all greenhouse gas emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants.” That would include Biden-era requirements that existing coal-fired units capture carbon pollution before it leaves the smokestack and store it, and that require some new gas plants use technologies that pollute less.

“We are seeking to ensure that the agency follows the rule of law while providing all Americans with access to reliable and affordable energy,” Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, said in a statement.

…The Trump administration is methodically uprooting policies aimed at curbing climate change, and the EPA is at the epicenter of that effort. In recent weeks, Zeldin has shuttered offices responsible for regulating climate and air pollution, and has launched the repeal of more than two dozen regulations and policies.

The agency is feeling pressure from the White House to finalize its deregulations by December, according to two people briefed on internal discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to describe them. That would be an extraordinarily fast pace. Rewriting regulations can typically take more than a year.

One target is a 2009 EPA finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health. That determination underpins most federal climate regulations, and repealing it would erase the agency’s legal authority to regulate carbon pollution from power plants, vehicles, oil and gas infrastructure and other sources.

Zeldin said deregulation would drive “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.”

… In the U.S., power plants were responsible for about 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2022. They emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of emissions in 2023, which is more than the total greenhouse gas emissions produced. By most countries.

Just a year ago, when the Biden administration announced tough new limits on pollution from existing coal-fired power plants as well as some new gas-burning plants, the EPA said the restrictions would mean that by 2035 the nation would annually avoid up to 1,200 premature deaths, 870 hospital visits, 1,900 cases of asthma, 48,000 school absences and 57,000 lost work days.

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, noted that solving climate change means undertaking a large number of seemingly small measures, like curbing emissions from automobiles, oil and gas wells, air travel, landfills, buildings and more.

“Just because there are multiple contributors to a problem doesn’t mean we should excuse all but the top one,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “Just because a polluter’s emissions are decreasing doesn’t mean that aren’t still far too high.”

This is an act of ideological arson, proof that Zeldin and Trump are either scientifically illiterate or willing to abdicate responsibility to the public and the planet, probably both. That they would parrot the fossil fuel industry’s talking points about “declining share of global emissions” while gutting the mechanisms meant to reduce those emissions is the kind of Orwellian doublethink that defines this regime’s relationship to reality. Trump didn’t pick Zeldin for his expertise—he picked him because he’s a loyal saboteur, willing to bulldoze decades of environmental protections in service of short-term profits and political spite. The fact that Senate Democrats like Fetterman, Gallego, and Kelly couldn’t even bring themselves to oppose this nomination should shame anyone who still thinks the climate crisis is a bipartisan concern.

Before people— especially younger people— voted for Trump they should have tried to understand that he’s wedded to 1960’s narratives and still sees oil, gas and coal as symbols of American dominance. To him, environmental regulations are just bureaucratic chains on ‘energy independence.’ He equates deregulation with strength and anything climate-related with weakness— especially because it comes from scientists, activists and European leaders he resents. He has long and publicly positioned himself as the enemy of ‘the elites.’ Since climate change is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists, international institutions, and educated liberals, he instinctively rejects it. If the experts say it's real, he’s suspicious by default. And, of course, there are the campaign donors from the fossil fuel industry. Besides, Trump operates on political and financial short-term gains. Climate action requires long-term investment and systemic change— neither of which align with his transactional, winner-takes-all mindset. At his core, Trump seems to interpret climate action as a rebuke of his greatness— as if acknowledging the crisis would mean admitting past failures, or worse, letting Biden, Obama or Greta Thunberg be right about something.