Category: climate change

  • Being True to Climate Change Principles: Greenhouse  Gas Reporting for Carbon Capture Credits

    Being True to Climate Change Principles: Greenhouse  Gas Reporting for Carbon Capture Credits

    In a recent blog post, I discussed how the Trump EPA has proposed doing away with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting. The proposed rule is one of several actions EPA Administrator Zeldin is taking to dismantle onerous climate change regulation meant to ultimately stop the production and consumption of oil, natural gas, and coal. I discussed how, rather than supporting this action, many large industry actors submitted comments urging EPA to continue requiring GHG reporting. Their main justification was to retain a GHG reporting mechanism for claiming 45Q carbon sequestration credits, although  satisfying external “stakeholders” was also a motivation.  The stakeholders such large industry actors should worry about satisfying are American citizens, by promoting policies that reduce energy costs, rather than European politicians with their failing climate agendas, but virtue signaling continues apace.

    In my comments to the proposal, I urged EPA to disregard the industry’s misguided request. First and foremost, the section of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that’s been used to justify such reporting actually doesn’t provide EPA with the legal authority to do so. GHG reporting has been erroneously designed for broad public consumption rather than neutral fact-finding and regulatory purposes, as required by the CAA.

    Further, the need for certain companies to report emissions in order to claim a tax credit doesn’t provide EPA with legal justification to collect GHG data. In my comments, I suggested companies and trades urging EPA to continue regulatory reporting should instead turn their focus to the Treasury Department to determine an alternative source of information for the 45Q credits. Small companies should not be burdened with the compliance cost and liability of GHG reporting to EPA just because some very large companies wish to continue taking advantage of carbon capture subsidies. Luckily, the Trump Administration is on top of the issue. In its first notice for 2026, the IRS issued a safe harbor for determining eligibility for 45Q credits if indeed EPA finalizes the proposed rule. The notice describes alternate means of reporting emissions for purposes of claiming the credit. The IRS action gives EPA a good retort to industry comments supportive of continued GHG reporting, although they already had a good counter in my comments. I’ve delivered a consistent regulatory message on climate change regulation over many years, and this is another example that it pays to be true to those principles.

  • Making You Make Me

    Making You Make Me

    Have you ever been in a situation where you want someone to make you do something that you already want to do? Yeah, me neither.

    EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is on a roll when it comes to reducing overregulation that stymies economic growth without providing tangible environmental benefits. The comment period closes today for the proposed rule to remove Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting requirements for all industry segments except the oil and natural gas industry. If finalized as proposed, it would suspend reporting for oil and natural gas until 2034.

    Along with the recent proposal to overturn the Endangerment Finding and vehicle GHG emissions standards, EPA is on track to stop the climate change jugernaut that aims to prevent the production and use of oil and natural gas. One would think, logically, that the industry would be all in, but one would be wrong. Several trade associations and companies are calling for continued reporting using flawed reasoning, in my opinion.

    They seek to use federal regulation to gain market share, claim certain tax credits, and show foreign purchasers that U.S. natural gas has a clean profile. And, frankly, they fear retribution from activist shareholders and potential future administrations with the same climate crisis zeal as the Biden Administration’s.

    Might I suggest to those wishing to report to instead do so voluntarily? They could publish emissions in their ESG reports to shareholders or they could band together and develop a voluntary third-party reporting mechanism. Voluntary efforts would show future administrations, foreign buyers, and shareholders that they’re committed to reducing GHGs, thereby currying the favor they so desire. For a full review of the legal and factual reasoning to support the proposed rule, including the free speech case, please see my full comments.

  • Missing the Moment on Climate Change

    Missing the Moment on Climate Change

    For the last fifteen years, the federal government has imposed climate change regulations that have cost society over one trillion dollars in regulatory cost and lost economic growth. Much of that regulation is directed at stifling U.S. fossil fuel production and use. Despite the enormous cost, the regulation has not significantly reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modeling shows that reducing all U.S. GHG emissions, a complete impossibility, would result in an insignificant 0.052o Celsius reduction in global temperatures.

    Despite the fact that climate change regulation has targeted U.S. oil and natural gas production in an effort to put the industry out of business, there has not been much industry support for EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s efforts to undo it. Very few of the 559,000 comments received for the proposed rule to overturn the endangerment finding and vehicle GHG emissions standards were received from industry. Of the few, most only supported overturning the emissions standards, not the endangerment finding which is the lynchpin to all climate change regulation. Only a handful of small oil and natural gas trade associations responded, most by signing onto Mountain States Legal Foundation’s comments. I submitted detailed comments on behalf of a few companies and trades that remained anonymous.

    The fact of the matter is that large or publicly traded companies don’t want to publicly support Zeldin’s actions and still feel compelled to call for methane regulation, despite Congress overturning the methane tax for at least ten years in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. They’re afraid the political environment will turn in the future and we’ll be back to the same failed climate policies.

    I would like to challenge that assumption. First and foremost, Administrator Zeldin’s EPA did a strong job of legally and scientifically supporting the proposed rescission of the endangerment finding. A future administration would have to overcome the uncertainty in climate science as well as three strong Supreme Court rulings that would tie its hands in re-imposing climate change regulation. The Supreme Court has decided that the federal government cannot regulate in the absence of clear Congressional authority to do so, which is the case for climate change. In our closely divided political system, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where Congress would provide that clear direction, even in a situation of Democrats having the trifecta that today Republicans enjoy.

    Likewise, society has turned against the unreality of a net-zero transition free of fossil fuels. Reality has struck hard, first following the invasion of Ukraine, which exposed Europe’s vulnerability to Russian energy hegemony, and then as European economies, particularly Germany’s and the United Kingdom’s, have started to deindustrialize. They’ve provided the example that only California and its blue state followers are foolish enough to continue.

    Further signs have been in the news recently, although they didn’t garner much attention. Of course, the liberal media doesn’t want to admit that its climate change alarmism and net-zero boosterism were utterly and completely wrong. But the stories are truly astounding to anyone who’s been paying attention. I’ll highlight a few.

    One, the total collapse of the financial industry’s capitulation to net-zero coercion from activist groups. Following the collapse of the insurance net-zero alliance last year, the banking industry recently voted to disband its alliance, and asset management companies are considering a similar action. Financial companies started to recognize their vulnerability to anti-trust and other legal action, but were helped along by states such as Texas, West Virginia, and Oklahoma that pulled assets from those that defund oil, gas, and coal, as well as by the election of President Trump.

    Meanwhile, the European Commission has delayed the adoption of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) for companies outside of the EU by at least two years. If it’s like those Electric Vehicle mandates that keep getting pushed back due to competitiveness and economic concerns, mandatory reporting will invariably be delayed further as the new 2027 decision point approaches. The Trump Administration put extreme pressure on the EU not to apply the requirements to U.S. companies.

    Even committed globalists and climate justice warriors are seeing the light. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who spent his career advocating for anti-democratic means to impose global climate change austerity, has overturned many Trudeau climate policies such as the deeply unpopular consumer carbon tax. I give him credit for representing his constituents, now that he’s subject to the will of the voters and not just virtue signaling at World Economic Forum cocktail parties. In the face of these developments and many others, the oil and natural gas industry should meet the moment and support EPA. We can continue successful voluntary efforts such as API’s Environmental Partnership in the absence of federal regulation. Such voluntary efforts and technological innovation are more responsible for the industry’s three-and-a-half decade record of success reducing methane emissions than regulation anyway. I don’t know what to call it other than a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

  • Overturning the Absurd Logic of the Endangerment Finding

    Overturning the Absurd Logic of the Endangerment Finding

    Today, I filed comments on EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s proposal to roll back the Obama-era Endangerment Finding (EF) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. After fifteen years of regulation that has been damaging to the economy while delivering negligible, if any, environmental benefit, the action is long overdue. EPA did an excellent job of justifying the proposed rule from a legal and evidentiary standpoint.

    Besides legal errors of the original EF, the reasoning behind it bordered on the absurd. It was bold in its desire to address the global problem of climate change, but  paradoxically, based on the belief that the bigger the problem, the less significance was necessary. EPA admitted that the emissions reductions were less significant than would usually be required for a local or regional air problem, but that, ‘‘…contributors must do their part even if their contributions to the global climate change problem, measured in terms of percentage, are smaller than typically encountered..” In other words, the more expansive and global the problem, the less the need to show the emissions reductions contribute in a significant way. Likewise, the vehicle tailpipe emissions standards aggregated six “well-mixed” GHG emissions, two of which are not even emitted by motor vehicles. Absurd.

    Besides the 2009 EF failing to show that U.S. GHG emissions from new vehicles significantly contribute to global temperatures and therefore, endanger public health, EPA violated the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), both by deviating from CAA precedent before 2009 and now failing legal precedents since, particularly the major questions doctrine and the overturning of Chevron deference. To be valid, the EF needed to show that the emissions reductions would lead to meaningful public health outcomes. Yet running EPA’s MAGICC* model finds that eliminating all U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by 2030 would reduce the increase in mean worldwide temperatures by 0.052o Celsius.  As that falls within the +0.1o C measurement error for global temperatures, it’s not measurable nor meaningful, and therefore, would have an insignificant impact on climate change and public health.

    Of course, it’s completely unrealistic to eliminate all U.S. fossil fuel use, as there is no alternative that does everything that oil, natural gas, and coal do, especially when considering affordability. If eliminating all U.S. fossil fuel use has an insignificant impact on climate and hence, the public health of its citizens, then new vehicle emissions have even less significance. Since 2009, all U.S. vehicle emissions have dropped from 4.3% of global GHGs to 2.5%. Further, overall U.S. GHGs have dropped from 23.5% in 2005 to 11% of global emissions, caused both by significant reductions in the United States—largely thanks to natural gas—and huge increases in China, India, and other developing countries.***

    Three Supreme Court rulings since the EF—Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (UARG), West Virginia v. EPA, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—render the justification EPA used in 2009 invalid. SCOTUS has ruled decisively that when a federal agency regulates on “major questions” that have broad economic and political consequence, it must be able to show definitive statutory authority. Since Congress never clearly directed EPA to regulate GHGs in the Clean Air Act nor compel a wholesale market transformation to electric vehicles, as the Biden GHG vehicle standards do, then the rules are unlawful. EPA should finalize the proposed rule to overturn the Endangerment Finding.

    My full comments are here.

    *   Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC)

    ** The Materiality of U.S. CO2 Emissions on Global Climate Change, Brent Bennet, Texas Public Policy Foundation, June 2025.

    *** All numbers from EPA data quoted in the proposed rule.

  • Regulatory Rollbacks in Memoriam of Charlie Kirk

    Regulatory Rollbacks in Memoriam of Charlie Kirk

    Last week, EPA released a rollback of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting for the oil and natural gas industry, in alignment with the One Big Beautiful Bill’s ten-year pause on the methane emissions tax—or bureaucratically, the Waste Emissions Charge (WEC). Now, I’m not privy to the discussions, but I can almost guarantee what’s going to happen in trade associations. Large, publicly traded companies are going to urge retention of GHG reporting, and will try to convince even small companies to go along with that approach.

    It’s a case of Stockholm Syndrome. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is committed to rolling back unlawful, economy-debilitating climate change regulation that would have an infinitesimal impact on climate change* but a deleterious effect on the industry and all energy consumers. Despite President Trump’s successful efforts in rolling back Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) nonsense, large companies remain under the sway of activist shareholders, and worry that if they don’t continue to bend the knee to the ESG gods, when the political environment changes, they’ll pay the price for not retaining fealty.

    Might I humbly suggest that companies and trade associations with that belief simply continue to report GHG emissions via their existing ESG reporting processes? Or band together as they have with API’s Environmental Partnership to reduce methane emissions and continue to report GHGs. Industry has a three-and-a-half decade record of success reducing methane emissions, most achieved without regulation. The Environmental Partnership has been a key component of that success. Keep those good efforts going without saddling small companies with onerous regulation. The Biden GHG reporting and WEC regulations caused even the smallest companies to go through the time-consuming and costly exercise of reporting GHGs only to discover that they’re under the regulatory threshold to report anyway.

    Meanwhile, the Trump regulatory roll-back machine is starting to move at the Interior Department as well. I was pleased to see BLM’s announcement last week of rulemaking to roll-back the unnecessary and unlawful public lands rule, and the sage-grouse plan comment period is nearing the end. I’m not developing comments for any clients on the latter, but I would note that the plan for all other states except Wyoming retains the very misguided Targeted Annual Warning System (TAWS). TAWS is a confusing system that lacks an adequate scientific evidentiary basis, and will be near-impossible for BLM to implement.

    Again, I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that career BLM staff convinced BLM leadership to retain TAWS in order to be consistent with the already completed Colorado and Oregon plans. That’s a bad reason. Range-wide mitigation planning considerations are not compelling, given that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires state and local planning, not multi-state or range-wide planning. On one hand, BLM is rightfully rejecting region-wide planning by rescinding the conservation rule while at the same time retaining the concept in the sage-grouse plan amendment. TAWS should go.

    *  See my comments on the since-rescinded Energy Department review of climate change science, where I discuss how removing all U.S. GHGs, a completely unrealistic scenario, would affect global warming by an unmeasurable by 0.052 of a degree Celsius.

  • An Open Letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright

    An Open Letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright

    Dear Secretary Wright:

    Thank you for the excellent report on the state of climate science from DOE’s Climate Working Group (CWG) contained in “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate”. You have assembled a team of highly qualified scientists and their ability to encapsulate the vast body of climate change literature into such a readable volume is to be commended. It is a breath of fresh air to read a straightforward, comprehensive summary of the best available science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and National Climate Assessments (NCA) with an honest detailing of the confidence levels and uncertainties.

    Multiple-use Advocacy strongly supports the efforts of DOE to honestly assess climate science and the effectiveness of climate change policy and its impact on the economy. We are proud that the oil and natural gas industry has a three-and-a-half decade record of success reducing methane emissions. The Biden Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) credited natural gas and renewable energy in the electric power sector for the fact that total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are 17% below 2005 levels, yet Energy Information Administration (EIA) data have consistently shown that natural gas has reduced more GHG emissions than wind and solar combined, delivering about 61% of the reductions to wind and solar energy’s 39%.

    As you state in the foreword, the public conversation has veered far from the actual science. We commend your efforts to educate the public on the true state of the science, which usually runs counter to the alarmist narrative in the media propagated by activists. Those expressing criticism of the orthodox climate change narrative are dismissed as deniers, even if they are concerned about addressing climate change in a measured, scientific manner, as you are. You have had the courage to resist that pressure and by releasing this Critical Review, you are forcing those who purposefully refuse to address the full complexity of climate change science to engage if they wish to continue to shape U.S. climate change policy. You are indeed initiating a full, honest conversation about the actual science contained within the IPCC reports and NCAs, not just the political summaries agreed to by governments. This public comment period is a brilliant way to force a conversation with those who incorrectly assert that the science is settled. By simply highlighting the science behind the IPCC and NCA reports, the Critical Review clearly shows that it is indeed far from “settled.”

    We have watched in dismay over the years as scientists who dare to challenge exaggerated claims about a climate crisis are shunned and silenced. Climate alarmists have developed a positive feedback loop using pressure and reputational attacks to silence countervailing opinions; scientific journals refuse to accept papers that do not contribute to the alarmist narrative; and government funding dries up for those scientists who offer a measured analysis of climate change or dare to offer unorthodox conclusions. Scientists are pressured to “downplay or even to misrepresent [their] research on the roles of climate and society in the economic impacts of extreme weather” because nuanced studies “might distract from efforts to advocate for emissions reductions.” Scientists are shunned for publishing accurate research that contradicts the alarmist narrative, so they purposefully follow the formula for getting published by, “shaping your research in specific ways to support pre-approved narratives than it is about generating useful knowledge for society.” No wonder a large segment of the public distrusts scientists and academia. They have watched scientists turn from dispassionate, objective seekers of truth to advocates for particular scientific and policy outcomes. We applaud your courage to stand up to the fray, and only wish there were more vocal support from the oil and natural gas industry for your efforts.

    Should those who have shirked engagement with the Critical Review’s authors and others who are critical of the climate science orthodoxy continue to hide behind the very unscientific concept of a “scientific consensus” on climate change and refuse to engage in this comment period, they will choose to disengage from current U.S. climate change discourse. If that turns out to be the case, their disengagement should be interpreted as an inability to address the uncertainties, biases, and discrepancies in the IPCC and NCA science itself.

    Further, the climate policies that have flowed from a skewed view of climate science and the “climate catastrophe” narrative would truly threaten human well-being as they seek to limit access to abundant, affordable energy. We appreciate your leadership reversing the misguided policies that flow from a misapplication of climate science

    In conclusion, we very much appreciate the Critical Review and how well it brings balance to the public conversation on climate change. The criticism will be intense, but this conversation is too important to leave to the loudest voices who deny the true state of climate science and seek to impose a climate orthodoxy. Thank you for having the courage to boldly take on the challenge.

    My full comment letter is available here:

  • Still Not Seeing Signs of Support for Climate Actions

    Still Not Seeing Signs of Support for Climate Actions

    As I suggested in my last blog post, the oil and natural gas industry is really not stepping up to the plate to support Energy Secretary Chris Wright, despite all he’s done for us. I’m not really aware of many companies or trade associations that are planning to comment on the Energy Department’s “Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” nor the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding, even though the latter is the basis for over a trillion dollars of regulatory actions that are damaging to our industry and the economy overall.

    Last week, EPA held four days of public hearings on the rule to overturn the endangerment finding. Grace van Deelan at Eos reports that  in 12 hours and hundreds of speakers, only 20 people spoke in support of the rule—API, various auto industry trades, and me. I personally could only sit through about three hours, but kudos to her for toughing it out. Eos is the reporting arm of AGU or Advancing Earth and Planetary Sciences, which is apparently an advocacy group, because there wasn’t much “scientific” about her article or the AGU website.

    A true earth and planetary scientist would want to engage on the issues critically. Instead, ACU seems content to elevate medical doctors in unrelated disciplines and mothers in the Moms Clean Air Force repeating again and again the need for the Obama-era endangerment finding in order to save kids from asthma and the vague stress of a changing world, none of which is supported by actual science. In true form, the very first speaker at the hearing was a gastroenterologist (he/his) put forth as a climate change “expert”, but whose expertise is “communicating” about climate change. I got a taste of the state of earth and planetary science in academia today when listening to a professor at the University of New Mexico relate all manner of unscientific effects of climate change, including her air conditioning expenses. In other words, there were a lot of speakers urging EPA not to overturn the endangerment finding, but very few scientific facts to be found.  

    I tuned in for API’s comments, and they supported overturning the tailpipe emissions standards, but that’s noncontroversial and bipartisan. I was the only one from the oil and natural gas industry that stood up for overturning the endangerment finding itself. Hopefully, there are those who will submit supportive written comments, but at this point, I’m not sure. The same can be said for comments from industry on DOE’s critical review of climate science. I fear that my industry will stay largely silent, and that’s a shame. If the endangerment finding is overturned, there’s a clearer path to correcting poor Biden-era methane rules. Industry can still continue its three and a half decade record of success reducing methane emissions, including before EPA methane regulations. Companies will still continue to innovate, take voluntary measures, and follow state and federal regulations.

    I’ll be submitting letters for both DOE’s and EPA’s comment periods. I’m near a final draft for the DOE comments, which are due September 2nd, and I don’t pull any punches. I’ve got a good start on the endangerment finding comments, which are due September 22nd, and those comments will be fully supportive as well. I hope others step up to the plate, but I’m not seeing signs yet. If you’d like to get in on the action, please let me know. I could use some back-up.