Category Archives: bearings

The Endangerment Finding

Now comes Earthjustice with another update, this time regarding their critically important defense of both settled science and established environmental law:

The Trump administration announced {July 29} that it is acting to repeal the most important provision authorizing the federal government to fight climate change.

In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that greenhouse gases are air pollutants that endanger public health and welfare by driving climate change. As such, gases like carbon dioxide and methane are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

This determination — rooted in scientific consensus and affirmed by the Supreme Court — is known as the endangerment finding. It is the foundation of several Clean Air Act protections that limit climate pollution from such sources as power plants, cars and trucks, and fossil fuel drilling operations.

Now, the Trump administration is denying both settled science and the government’s responsibility to address climate change. This, despite Americans facing increasing and intensifying droughts, wildfires, and other climate-change fueled disasters. Trump’s EPA announced it will rescind the finding, and by extension, eliminate greenhouse gas standards for vehicles.

“With today’s announcement, the EPA is telling us in no uncertain terms that U.S. efforts to address climate change are over,” said Earthjustice President Abbie Dillen. “For the industries that contribute most to climate change, the message is ‘pollute more.’ For everyone feeling the pain of climate disasters, the message is ‘you’re on our own.’”

Our coalition of Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and Sierra Club has been preparing for this unlawful action. We’ll see the Trump administration in court.

Read on to learn more about where the finding came from and why it matters.

A Supreme Court order and a pile of scientific evidence

The EPA’s determination was the result of a historic Supreme Court case. In 2007, the court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

This meant that the EPA was required to determine whether greenhouse gases pose a risk to public health and make rules to protect the public if so. Faced with a trove of scientific research that links greenhouse gases to a warming, chaotic climate, the agency released the endangerment finding in 2009. Since then, it has served as a basis for rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

The case for the finding has only gotten stronger

As of 2024, the last 10 years have all been the hottest on record amid increasing extreme weather events. The cost of natural disasters driven by climate change is skyrocketing. As just one example, the wildfires that ravaged L.A. this winter are estimated to have caused more than $250 billion in damage. Climate-fueled disasters are driving up insurance rates on homes and businesses, and insurers are exiting high-risk markets.

Meanwhile, the endangerment finding has withstood several industry-backed legal challenges, including one that Earthjustice helped defeat in court. In 2023, the U.S. Circuit Court in D.C. unanimously rejected the most recent challenge by an oil industry group and a collection of climate deniers, and the Supreme Court declined their request to appeal.

What’s next for the endangerment finding?

The administration released its proposal for rescinding the endangerment finding on July 29. The agency said it would comply with its legal obligation to hold a public comment period on the proposal. Earthjustice will be working with clients and partners to submit comprehensive legal and technical comments. This is also a chance for you to weigh in.

After the EPA reviews the public comments and drafts the final rule, it will be sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review. The final rule is expected before the end of the year.

Some of the major regulations that depend on the finding:

Limits on vehicle emissions

At the same time it attacked the endangerment finding, the Trump administration proposed to eliminate climate emissions standards for cars, trucks, and other vehicles.

Transportation is a giant source of carbon dioxide. Emissions from gas-powered vehicles make up the largest source of CO2 in the country. In March 2024, the EPA finalized new car pollution standards that move us towards a pollution-free future. The agency lowered the maximum amount of tailpipe emissions allowed from new cars, starting in model year 2027. This isn’t a ban on gas cars; instead, it pushes automakers to increase the amount of zero-emissions vehicles per fleet each year to balance out emissions from gas-powered cars and light trucks.

In reversing course, the administration is making our economy less competitive. The world is already electrifying its cars and trucks, and the Trump administration is seeking to tie American manufacturers to an old and dying technology.

Limits on power plant emissions

Power plants are responsible for roughly a quarter of climate pollution in the country — particularly carbon dioxide. Yet until last year, these plants had a free pass to dump climate-warming emissions into the air.

In 2024, the EPA proposed standards that require new gas and existing coal-fired power plants to reduce their carbon pollution by 90%. The agency projected that the new standards would cut annual carbon emissions by the same amount as taking 328 million gas-powered cars off the road. The rule also has significant public health benefits, potentially averting up to 1,200 premature deaths a year by 2035.

In June, Trump’s EPA proposed a rollback of these power plant standards.

Limits on methane emissions from oil and gas drilling

As the country transitions to a clean energy economy, the fossil fuel industry has tried to frame “natural” methane gas as a climate-friendly energy source. It’s not: Methane traps over 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than CO2. It is responsible for approximately one-third of the global warming we are experiencing today.

Each year, fossil fuel companies leak or deliberately vent 13 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere during oil and gas operations. In 2024, after years of legal advocacy by Earthjustice, the Biden administration adopted a rule that cuts 80% of methane from those oil and gas facilities, which are the main source of methane emissions.

The standards address the biggest sources of U.S. oil and gas methane pollution, requiring regular leak monitoring at existing and new well sites and a shift from intentionally emitting devices to widely available zero-emission equipment. The rules also include a program to quickly address the largest leaks and malfunctions — known as super-emitters — and require companies to curtail wasteful flaring (burning off excess gas).

The Trump administration is moving to delay the rule this summer and then revise or revoke it.


For decades, Earthjustice’s litigation has helped strengthen the laws that protect communities from dirty air and reduce climate pollution. We will not cede this progress.


Defend the Western Arctic

Now comes Earthjustice with an urgent appeal, relayed below:

 

A dunlin searches for food among short green grasses in the Western Arctic, in the area close to Lake Teshekpuk.

A dunlin searches for food among short green grasses in the Western Arctic, in the area close to Lake Teshekpuk. (Kiliii Yuyan for Earthjustice)

 

Every spring, birds from every corner of the globe make their way to Alaska’s Western Arctic, the largest tract of public land in the United States. Some travel from South America, others from New Zealand or Southeast Asia, all converging on one of the most ecologically rich and remote nesting grounds in the world.

In the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, yellow-billed loons glide across still waters. Long-tailed ducks, red phalaropes, and king eiders feed and breed in its wetlands. Shorebirds like dunlins and semipalmated sandpipers raise their young in the expansive tundra, while brant geese and snow geese gather in molting flocks along the lake’s edge.

 

Two sandhill cranes dance in the Western Arctic, in the area close to Lake Teshekpuk.

Two sandhill cranes dance in the Western Arctic, in the area close to Lake Teshekpuk. (Kiliii Yuyan for Earthjustice)

This isn’t just a place of staggering natural beauty. It is a globally significant ecosystem that supports countless species, from migratory birds to caribou, polar bears, and Indigenous communities who have lived in relationship with this land for millennia. The Western Arctic also plays a critical role in stabilizing our climate: its permafrost stores vast amounts of carbon, and its reflective sea ice helps cool the planet. Protecting this region is essential not only for preserving biodiversity and Indigenous lifeways, but also for slowing global warming and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

But now, the Trump administration has proposed repealing key protections for this landscape to prioritize expanded oil and gas drilling.

The protections at risk were put in place to shield ecologically sensitive areas from harmful fossil fuel development. Rolling them back would fast-track drilling in some of the most fragile and valuable wildlife habitat in the country.

This is just the first step in a broader push to industrialize the Western Arctic and won’t be the last. The disastrous Willow project is located there, and the oil and gas industry has plans to continue expanding across the region, which will ultimately accelerate the climate crisis.

We have less than 60 days to raise our voices.

Tell the Department of the Interior: The Western Arctic is too important to lose. Repealing these protections puts wildlife, subsistence traditions, and our climate at risk. These lands must remain protected.

 


Our Mirror World

Now comes Nicholas Carr, eminent cartographer of the data mine in all its hallucinatory caverns. An excerpt from a recent post on his endlessly illuminating substack:

Let us turn those last two words into a declaration of independence: 

DEFY DATAFICATION!


Ecological Connective Tissue

Now comes the voice of the philosophically inclined mycologist Merlin Sheldrake, via a few excerpts from a mini-colloquium organized by the rich mycelial network known as Orion magazine:

SYMBIOTIC WITH-NESS

 

˜˜˜˜˜˜˜


On This Day

For a concise & historically accurate account of why we celebrate Juneteenth, we relay a short video written & narrated by Heather Cox Richardson:

 

 

˜˜˜˜˜˜˜


Against the Cult of Death

Now comes an Open Letter, signed by hundreds of Nobel laureates, philosophers, scientists & artists, including the entire editorial staff here at DP:

˜˜˜˜˜˜


Twenty Lessons

Available as a free download from Timothy Snyder’s website:

 

 

˜˜˜˜˜˜

 


Deep In Our Tissues

Now comes the resounding voice of Barry Lopez, with a passage from within the conversational riffles of his  Syntax of the River: The Pattern Which Connects.

 

Our trouble seems to be that, you know, our primate heritage, which is apparent in watching the behavior of chimpanzees and bonobos, is that we’re keenly interested in ourselves and opposed to others. That’s deep in our tissues. And with the kind of world we’ve built, that’s not going to work. So, those human beings who have the very strongest residue of the kind of patrolling behavior and violence that troops of chimpanzees have, those people would like the world to be, I think, arranged in a way that suits their habits and their desires. But a lot of people die that way. And we have created a chemical environment that is killing people left and right, quickly or slowly, through cancer, for example.

It just doesn’t make sense anymore to have these ideas about “me” and “mine” and the terrible burden that has been created by so-called advanced nations about the primacy of ownership, the ownership of food. Or, you know, the terrifying thing in the United States, this idea that nothing is exempt from the application of a kind of economics that’s meant for profit. I mean, how can you make the care of another, the professional care of another person’s body, be informed by a profit motive? Even a fifth-grade kid can see there is something that doesn’t really add up here.

So, for me as a writer, I live here and I’m informed by this [river]. And the way it informs me helps me understand a lot of the things my species does that are suicidal. It’s not up to me to say that they are suicidal, but I would feel like a traitor to my teachers here if I never said a thing, never mentioned it.

 

˜˜˜˜˜˜˜

 


Dead Silent

We are grateful to a DP correspondent for alerting us to the below video study in abject ethical & moral vacuity.

 

 

Once this wave of lethal madness recedes, the judgement of history will be severe regarding all those who silently grinned and smirked while inflicting senseless cruelty upon the weak, the vulnerable and the poor.

˜˜˜˜˜˜


Sad By Design

Over the years, we have received countless enquiries as to why we are not “on” Facebook; and why do we not “weigh in” on X.

Now comes the voice of esteemed media theorist Geert Lovink with a few excerpts from an interview (worth perusing in its entirety) centering on his 2019 book, Sad By Design.

Read on:

In my book, Sad by Design, I contrast technologically induced sadness not just with the historical ‘illness’ melancholy but also with boredom, depression, loneliness and similar sombre mental states that are dominant today. We read a lot about ‘male’ anger, from trolling and shitstorms to cyber-warfare but less so about the regressive side. Emotional rides are no longer experienced in solitude; the virtual others are always there as well.

It is a truism that we are lonely together (a subtle but crucial variation of Sherry Turkle’s alone together). We cannot put the phone away — there is no relief. In my essay, I have tried to minimize the comparison between the current wave of technologically-induced sadness and the rich historical descriptions of melancholy. […] 

The predictable continuity thesis is not just elitist, it is escapist. It walks away from the dirty present, much in the same way romantics did in the industrial 19th century.

Techno temperaments generated by computer code and interface design (also known as nudging) causes overload and exhaustion and produces a gloomy state that flickers, without ever becoming dominant on the surface. Sadness today is an indifferent micro-feeling, a flat and mild state of affairs. This should be contrasted with the much heavier illnesses such as depression, stress and burn-out.

One or two centuries ago these would be labelled melancholia. Some artists make this an explicit topic of their work such as Lil Peep and Billie Eilish.

Sadness is no longer hidden and is becoming part of pop culture. Youngsters feel the anxiety, the stress, and become sad about empty promises and diminishing opportunities. They are experts at reading daily life through the sadness lens. This does not mean we should medicalize them. We are not sick.

How do we comfort the disturbed? Not by taking their phone away. What can we do that’s liberating and prevents moralism? […]

Right now, social media are either the domain of marketing or an object for (moralistic) concern of teachers, parents, politicians). Critical internet research is still a joke in terms of funding, schools, research programs. […]

Social reality (SR) is so much larger than hyped-up technologies such as virtual and artificial reality. SR is also am ironical hint to sociology, the discipline that so far has failed to contribute to a better understanding of the ‘social in social media’ as I called it in 2012 in e-flux, an essay I updated in Social Media Abyss.

I no longer believe there is some raw and truthful reality outside of the social worlds that tech companies have created.

Dichotomies such as online-offline and real-virtual are no longer meaningful. I like the idea of a social reality that people carry with them. Once they grab their phone and start swiping and scrolling through the updates on their ‘social’ apps they are in it again. You go on ‘social’, as the Italians say. Have you seen it on ‘social’, as the Italians say.

We need to re-invent the social, which is now technical and digital. I would not say it ‘affects’ us as such an understanding somehow suggests that we are outside, victims, subjects. The user perspective teaches us that we’re fully involved—by design—and constantly interact, contribute, upload, klick, respond, like, swipe, whatever. The extractive data machine lives of that.

[…]

Self-design can be a somewhat naïve term. The daily reality, in particular for young people, is a brutal one, in which the construction and maintenance of the self-image is a matter of life and death. We should not underestimate the internalized values of the neo-liberal precarious reality in which people are forced to compete with each other and life never quite succeeds.

There are always mishaps, fall-outs, missed opportunities, break-ups, strange downtimes in our mood, an endless period of boredom in which nothing seems to work. The self-image constantly breaks down, we get angry or depressed, can’t finish a deadline. This is all recorded and captured, processed and turned into data points that are added to our profile. Self-image is no longer a cute selfie, it has become much more complex and contradictory. […]

Silicon Valley has all but killed the speculative imaginary—and they are acutely aware of that. This was their aim. Not merely own it but shut it down by pulling it into the background. A growing movement is reclaiming the net but it’s an uphill battle.

It sounds weird but ‘another internet is possible’ has almost become a subversive slogan. If we want to overcome homo extractionist, we need to organize and fight, in visible manners, build and use those alternatives we desire so much! […]

Right now, there is hardly anyone working on the speculative re-design of the social. This space has been poisoned by the systems of likes, followers, updates, newsfeeds, ‘friends’ you name it. Let’s get rid of this jargon. However, we want to reinvent the social we need to acknowledge that we can no longer distinguish between the social and tech.

Forget offline romanticism. Secondly, we need to get rid of the Silicon Valley online presence inside our conversations, our lives. Let’s minimize the presence of third parties and focus in a pragmatic way on what needs to be done and what tools support this strategy.

No more invisible moderators, filters, censors. The algo ain’t no friend of mine. Alt.social will have to confront itself with various challenges: monetization and democratic decision making. Both aspects have been quietly removed from Silicon Valley’s agenda and their related start-up venture circles. For art and activism redistribution of the ‘wealth of the networks’ and collective decision making are essential. We need to dismantle the ‘free’ and invent new ways to work together and deal with difference and disputes.

We can no longer delegate the management of the world to these IT firms. Silicon Valley is part of the problem and we no longer expect them to resolve the growing tensions in the world.

 

True, all that, in 2019 — more deeply so in 2025!

˜˜˜˜˜