#… make it almost impossible for the USA to limit CO2 emissions…#

Good work!

There is no rhyme nor reason why Australians, particularly academics, waste their time, and ours, on foreign politicians when we have the worst PM ever in our own country, affecting us, not Americans.

I would swap Albanese for Trump anyday.

“Climate emissions” (I thought it was us doing the emitting) do not need “tackling”. Trump knows this, and acts accordingly.

Any person who thinks, believes, writes or says that Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is a pollutant is a science moron.

The EPA calculates that the changes to the regulations will save the US economy $4.5 Trillion (yes that's a T) over the next three decades. The great Steve Milloy thinks that's a massive understatement.

While some fetishise over CO2, others think that savings of that magnitude are rather important.

mhaze,

Quoting the compliance cost savings without mentioning the avoided damage costs is only half the equation.

Regulatory impact analyses typically calculate both sides: the cost to industry and the economic benefits of avoided health impacts, disaster damage, agricultural losses, and productivity decline. Citing the $4.5T savings figure without comparing it to the projected climate damages tells us nothing about net economic effect.

Saying "it saves trillions" is like cancelling insurance and calling the premium savings profit.

If the argument is that the economic benefits of deregulation outweigh the long-term climate costs, then make that case with a full cost-benefit comparison. Otherwise it's just gross numbers being waved around.

I didn't mention the economic savings from the regulations because there aren't any.... all pain, no gain.