A Quick Take on the EPA’s Bold Move (and What It Means for Your Car)
By Victoria Friedman (via The Epoch Times)
On a Sunday that felt more like a headline than morning coffee, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin strutted into the spotlight to roll out a deck‑harrow plan: repeal the Obama‑era “endangerment findings.” These findings link stormy car exhaust fumes to climate change and help keep pollution limits in check.
- What’s the deal? The government wants to ditch a key scientific study that let cars be at the center of climate policy.
- Why bother? Zeldin argues the “findings” are outdated, and says staying on them could slow economic progress.
- What does that spell for us? If the state pulls the plug, stricter emission rules might loosen, potentially letting more smoke trail across highways.
In short, it’s a tug‑of‑war between science and policy, and everyone’s watching to see whose side wins the headline battle. Keep your ears open — there might be a storm brewing, and this is how you’ll know it’s coming!
EPA Boss Lee Zeldin Unveils “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) Plans
What Happened in the White House East Room?
On May 22, 2025, Lee Zeldin, the EPA Administrator, made a grand entrance at a Make America Healthy Again event in the iconic East Room. While sipping coffee, he told CNN’s State of the Union that the agency’s earlier 2009 findings were built on “the most pessimistic views of the science.” He shrugged off those old assumptions, saying they turned out to be wrong. “We’re putting forward 2025 facts now, not 2009 chicken‑pox predictions,” he claimed.
Zeldin’s Bold Move on July 29
During a quick trip to an Indiana auto shop, Zeldin dropped a half‑trillion‑dollar bombshell: He wants to repeal the entire 2009 framework. “That would end 16 years of uncertainty for car makers and American drivers,” he told reporters.
What Could Save the Economy
- If the repeal passes, the EPA says it could slash $1 trillion in regulations.
- It would hand the country an estimated $54 billion in annual savings.
Getting Rid of Power‑Plant Laws
Zeldin’s team told the press in June that the administration is ready to loosen the Clean Power Plant rules that have been in place since the Biden and Obama eras. These rules required coal and gas plants to capture 40 % of their emissions by 2032 and ramp that up to 90 % by 2039. Zeldin argued that the cost of meeting these requirements would hit each plant with a $1 billion yearly bill.
The Bottom Line
When the EPA goes on its new “Make America Healthy Again” tour, the focus is clear: Cut regulations, cut costs, and give businesses a breather. Whether that will bring fresh cleaner air or just light the lamps in bipartisan debates remains to be seen. But one thing’s for certain – the Great Repeel‑Bum is already in the track kit and ready for the wheels to spin!
Two Findings
A Quick‑and‑Clean Low‑Tech Look at EPA & Zeldin’s Gas‑Frenzy
What the EPA actually did: Back in December 2009, the agency made two quick legal calls that would later let them tighten the rules on cars and other green‑gas sources.
First Call – “Hot‑to‑Heat” Atmosphere
- The EPA said that the six main gases (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, and others) floating around our skies are whining about our health and economy.
- It didn’t demand we fix the issue; it just flagged a problem.
Second Call – The Vehicle Vibe
- Here the agency pointed out that new cars and engines are the big culprits spewing those gases.
- Again, no go‑ahead for action, just a warning sign.
“No hard rules yet,” the EPA told us, but it left a door open for future rules on greenhouse gas emissions.
Zeldin’s “Mental Leaps” Commentary
During the “State of the Nation” talk, Gov. Zeldin sliced into the EPA’s logic.
“The government folks took a giant mental leap to justify the findings,” Zeldin suspected. “They say carbon dioxide, when mixed with a whole crew of other well‑mixed gases—some of which don’t even come from cars at all—doesn’t cause climate change. It contributes. They never tell how much, but it’s a little more than zero—just enough to be useful.”
In short—Zeldin left his critics wondering: “Just how many gas‑puffs can we really shrug off?”
TL;DR: EPA laid the groundwork, but it’s policy still in the pipeline. Zeldin slammed the confidence behind the numbers as a tall order.
Vague Language
Zeldin Goes on a Seventeenth‑Century Rant About the EPA’s Legal Waffles
Yesterday’s speech from Congressman Martin Zeldin reminded lawmakers that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can’t just mash up vague statutes and call it a policy. “The power comes from the law. I don’t get to just make up the law,” he said, resounding like a chorus line of legal caution.
Quick Take: the EPA’s “Mobile Source” Debate
- Mobile sources = cars, trucks, buses. Zeldin says the EPA’s “mobile source” mandate should be handled by Congress, not a bureaucratic agency.
- He stresses that rules that could wipe out entire industries are a no‑no. “We’re not going to regulate out of existence entire sectors of our economy,” he sneered.
- Artificial‑intelligence ambitions? Zeldin insists the USA will become the AI capital of the world without doing a full‑blown overhaul of every sector.
How the Plan is Still on the Draft Table
Right now, the EPA’s draft is “just a proposal,” says Zeldin. That means it can be reviewed, tweaked, and eventually decided on after public comment closes. Think of it like a recipe that’s still in the flavor‑testing phase.
Environmental Groups Let Them In—Wait, Maybe Not
The Environmental Defense Fund took the initiative and posted onto X (formerly Twitter) last month: “The proposal would put millions in harm’s way.” According to the group:
- More pollution? Yes.
- Stronger hurricanes, bigger floods, fiercer fires? All on the menu.
- Higher insurance and fuel costs for Americans? No way for the budget to laugh it off.
In short, the agency’s “innovation” could turn into a renaissance of terrestrial mischief.
Credits & Attributions
T.J. Muscaro and Jackson Richman contributed to this report—thank you, human eyes! (We promise this story won’t be a ghostwriter’s copy-paste delight.)