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.
