• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

WSJ Rebukes Biden’s Job-Killing ‘Backdoor’ Scheme To Regulate CO2

by Joseph Vazquez
March 19, 2021, 1:59 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 3 mins read
A A
10
Share on FacebookShare on XwitterShare on Linkedin

biden confusing timesThe Wall Street Journal took a sledgehammer to a scheme by President Joe Biden’s administration to push job-killing climate regulations without congressional approval.

A new Journal editorial exposed how “Democratic AGs, green groups, and a top Biden environmental regulator are colluding on a plan to impose the Green New Deal on states through a back regulatory door because they know they can’t pass it through the front in Congress.” (Read the op-ed in full here)

As the editorial described it, “Climate activists have long sought to force CO2 emissions reductions under the Clean Air Act, but this has been tricky. The Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) ruled that the law’s general definition of ‘pollutant’ covered greenhouse gases.”

However, “the Court didn’t tell the [Environmental Protection Agency] how it should regulate CO2 under the law.”

The EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six “‘criteria pollutant[s]’ known to directly harm human health: nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter.”

However, “CO2 doesn’t cause asthma or other diseases, and CO2 emissions generated locally can’t be reliably measured,” The Journal said. “[T]he Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set deadlines for states to meet their primary NAAQS for criteria pollutants within 10 years.”

The Journal summarized that “it’s technically infeasible and legally questionable to regulate CO2 as a criteria pollutant.” The fact that regulating CO2 would be “technically infeasible” and “legally questionable” apparently hasn’t stopped Team Biden.

The Journal named former Obama administration EPA official and current Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Joseph Goffman.

Specifically, the paper identified Goffman as the mastermind behind the plan to use “backdoor” methods to force states to regulate CO2. Goffman was responsible for EPA’s NAAQS.

The Journal outlined the nefarious carbon regulation scheme in detail:

Emails obtained by Chris Horner at Energy Policy Advocates, which were shared with us, show Democratic AGs in 2019 consulted Mr. Goffman, then at Harvard Law School, on using the NAAQS to regulate CO2.

(….)

Consultants referred by Mr. Goffman told the AGs that regulating CO2 as a criteria pollutant wouldn’t fly. But they proposed using ozone NAAQS as what one called a ‘backdoor.’ Fossil fuel combustion, motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions contribute to ozone.

Through the “backdoor” method, said The Journal,  “[T]he EPA could make states reduce CO2 emissions by tightening ozone standards. States might have to outlaw natural gas-powered appliances, gas stations, and internal combustion engines to meet stricter ozone standards.”

The Journal also noted that “[a]ny climate legislation Congress enacts will no doubt contain a potpourri of green energy subsidies, but Democrats won’t be able to use budget reconciliation to banish fossil fuels.”

But with Goffman serving in the Biden administration, he has now been placed “in [a] position to execute their plan at the Biden EPA.”

The Journal noted that Democratic Attorneys General had already begun their push to regulate CO2 just a day before Biden’s inauguration:

Sixteen Democratic AGs on Jan. 19—a day before Mr. Biden’s inauguration—challenged the EPA’s current ozone NAAQS. Their one paragraph lawsuit says the standards are ‘unlawful, arbitrary and capricious and therefore must be vacated.’ Their aim is to hasten a replacement ozone rule that regulates CO2.

Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News (818-460-7477), CBS News (212-975-3247), and NBC News (212- 664-6192) and demand they report on the Biden administration’s scheme to go around Congress to force states to regulate CO2.

Read more at NewsBusters

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Energy

German Wind Slump Triggers Energy Losses, Industry Turmoil

May 15, 2025
Energy

Geothermal Gold Rush: U.S. Digs Deep To Power the Future

May 15, 2025
Extreme Weather

Debunking The Weather Attribution Theater Playbook

May 15, 2025

Comments 10

  1. Sonnyhill says:
    4 years ago

    After a good thunder storm, most people would agree that the air seems fresher, cleaner. That is partly due to the natural ozone produced by lightning .

  2. David Lewis says:
    4 years ago

    I once worked in a lab that used deuterium lamps to produce high intensity ultraviolet light. The UV light generated ozone in concentrations high enough that we could smell it. Our company hired a consultant to investigate possible health hazards. The result was even right by the instruments that were generating the ozone the concentration wasn’t high enough to be a health hazard. Using ozone as an excuse to reduce the use of fossil fuels is a lame excuse by people with the lowest possible integrity who are trying to advance their political agendas.

  3. Barry Bateman says:
    4 years ago

    Biden claims to love science. Unfortunately, like most politicians and journalists, he doesn’t know the first thing about it. As far as CO2 goes, it is essential to life and inconsequential to climate. Temperature variable CO2 solubility changes CO2 levels with temperature, Joe. Not the other way around. We know this because ice core data detailing the last eight hundred thousand years proves that CO2 levels follow temp changes. All life dies without CO2 Joe. That is not pollution – that is the basic stuff of life. Carbon Dioxide, through photosynthesis, is the basic ingredient of life on earth – that’s science Joe. CO2 provides the carbon backbone of every fat, every protein, every DNA molecule that IS life on earth Joe. Photosynthesis produces every bit of the biochemical energy required for all life to exist. That’s science Joe. And photosynthesis has produced and continues to replenish every molecule of the oxygen we breathe. That’s science Joe. CO2 is the foundational molecule of life on earth and every carbon-based lifeform that is our web of life, Joe. That is the science of biology, Joe. It is true and it is beautiful. And it is totally dependant on sufficient concentrations of CO2. Not the starvation level lows we have today. And CO2 levels have been dangerously declining from luxuriant levels as high as 7000ppm at the beginning of multicellular life. Declining to within 30ppm of life beginning to die Joe. That is science. We are in an ongoing ice age, Joe. It’s called the Pleistocene Ice Age. Temperatures naturally vary within that ice age by about twelve to thirteen degrees C. That’s science, Joe. The coldest two-thirds of the Pleistocene are glacials. The warmest one-third are called interglacials. We are in an interglacial now Joe. It’s called the Holocene. Temperatures naturally vary by four degrees C, Joe. Each glacial/interglacial cycle lasts 100,000 years Joe. It’s driven by our solar neighbor’s gravitational effect on the shape of earth’s orbit, Joe. Right now it’s circular. But it changes to elongated ellipsoidal, Joe. And things get a lot colder when it does. Ice advances thousands of feet thick as far south as NYC. But for the next couple thousand years you don’t have to worry, Joe. Because temperatures remain well within the last twelve thousand year Holocene normal, natural range. That is the science of climate Joe. And the science of life. CO2 is essential to life. CO2 is insignificant to climate. So quit trying to abandon 85% of the world’s energy in the Dumb Energy idea that you can replace 24/7/365 energy with energy that doesn’t work when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. It doesn’t work, as Texas can tell you. Trying to do it requires complete redundancy so it triples the cost. Just compare the cost of energy in Germany (near the highest in the world) to America’s Joe. It’s one-third as expensive. And it’s completely unnecessary for the climate. I know your head is spinning Joe, but let me give you a few simple numbers. Lack of energy deaths worldwide are about twelve million per year. Climate related deaths one hundred years ago were five hundred thousand per year. Today, they’re about fifty-six thousand. In spite of a near three-fold increase in population over the same time period. That makes climate safety an incredible success story Joe. Wake up. Dodder off and get your wife to explain it to you.

    • Sonnyhill says:
      4 years ago

      Joe knows diddly. He is the anti-Trump.

  4. Don Branson says:
    4 years ago

    Thanks for your work we can usr it to fight our government in Canada as well.

  5. aido says:
    4 years ago

    We should be happy that the level of CO2 is increasing. More CO2 will be a boon to all things that grow; it’s like giving free fertiliser to the world. It also means that there will be more vegetation and phytoplankton, which will absorb more CO2. The ideal level for robust growth of vegetables and plants is probably around 1,600 ppm, almost four times the present level which is why growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses.

    Submariners live happily with CO2 at 1,000 ppm in their submarines.

    The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more oxygen there is for us to breathe, courtesy of the trees, plants and the phytoplankton in the seas.

    There are other reasons why we should be happy that CO2 is on the increase:

    • more CO2 stimulates plants to reduce the pores on their leaves through which water from the plants is evaporated, meaning plants need less water to grow. Needing less water, plants will grow in areas that were too dry to support them before;
    • in a higher CO2 environment, plants need less light for photosynthesis, a boon for northern latitudes;
    • more CO2 causes plants to develop longer root systems, so they can travel further for essential nutrients in the soil;
    • in a recent study of 475 plants, increasing CO2 from the then 410 ppm to 710 ppm increased the growth of the plants by 50% on average;
    • More plants means more food for animals. We eat plants and some animals.
    Go figure.

    • Sonnyhill says:
      4 years ago

      Anyone who would argue with you is a DENIER.

  6. Chaamjamal says:
    4 years ago

    CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential chemical in the cycle of life on earth in terms of photosynthesis and respiration.

  7. John Shewchuk says:
    4 years ago

    Joe’s plan includes informing the public about truth and facts about climate change … https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/KX3Jgsm

  8. David Lewis says:
    4 years ago

    The Obama administration conducted tests in order to justify tighter emission on ozone. They took people with respiratory problems and exposed them to high levels of ozone. Despite the bias built into the test not a single subject demonstrated an adverse reaction. Today the back door regulation might proceed on the assumption ozone standards need to be tighten with no justification.

    If reducing CO2 levels can not get passed Congress on its own merit, then it shouldn’t be implemented.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • german wind farmGerman Wind Slump Triggers Energy Losses, Industry Turmoil
    May 15, 2025
    Germany's wind power output plunged in 2025 as wind speeds hit a 50-year low, slashing profits and sparking doubts about energy reliability. […]
  • Geothermal PlantGeothermal Gold Rush: U.S. Digs Deep To Power the Future
    May 15, 2025
    America is racing to unlock geothermal energy using shale-era tech — and it could power AI, homes, and industry while cutting reliance on China. […]
  • mississippi floodingDebunking The Weather Attribution Theater Playbook
    May 15, 2025
    The media exaggerates climate change flooding in the Mississippi Valley, ignoring peer-reviewed science for so-called attribution science. […]
  • the climate change graph that liedExposed: The Global Warming Graph That Duped The World
    May 15, 2025
    This viral video exposes the truth behind the iconic climate change graph used to justify extreme policies and global warming panic. […]
  • gov kathy hochulTrump Dismantles Biden’s Climate Legacy While New York Chases Green Delusions
    May 14, 2025
    As Trump unravels Biden’s costly climate agenda, New York doubles down on its net zero fantasy despite no federal backing and no workable plan. […]
  • Hurricane WindsThe Media Hype Extreme Weather—But Data Tells A Different Tale
    May 14, 2025
    Despite rising alarm over extreme weather, Americans are safer than ever from natural disasters thanks to better forecasting, buildings, and tech. […]
  • gavel earth money courtTrial Lawyers To Swamp Louisiana Energy Sector With Climate Lawfare After Chevron Verdict
    May 14, 2025
    A $745M verdict in Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish kicked off a wave of lawsuits that could gut the state's energy sector under the guise of eco justice. […]
  • north sea wind farmBritish Energy Boss Says Net-Zero Grid Won’t Lower UK Electric Bills
    May 14, 2025
    British Gas CEO says a net-zero grid won't cut UK electricity prices, contradicting Labour’s savings claim and sparking fresh energy policy debate. […]
  • corn field sunAfricaNews Blames Climate Change for Nigeria’s Drought, Ignores Real Factors
    May 13, 2025
    AfricaNews blames climate change for Nigeria’s drought, but poor water management, deforestation, and overuse are the real, overlooked culprits. […]
  • Chris Wright Fox NewsEnergy Department Axes 47 Rules Targeting Appliances, Buildings, and DEI
    May 13, 2025
    Trump’s Energy Department scrapped 47 rules targeting appliances, buildings, DEI, and energy that gut Green New Deal mandates and lower prices. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch